Ship of Fools: Purgatory: God wants you stuck with each other forever

Thread: Purgatory: God wants you stuck with each other forever Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001233

Posted by Bartolomeo (# 8352) on :

Despite the widespread acceptance of divorce in society, and the reality that most Christians and non-Christians alike would not prefer to live in a society where divorce is not available, the possibility of a divorce among church members lends rise to whispered tut-tuttings like no other matter.

Most historians opine that the overall success and duration of marriages has been unchanged across the centuries. Death of one spouse, mistresses, concubines, and abandonment of home and family for the army, the sea, the life of a ne'er do well, or a new frontier previously filled the niche divorce does today.

Why do most churches fail to see divorce as anything but a personal moral failing of both spouses?

[ 05. January 2015, 21:07: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

It is because of what Jesus said.

The idea is that love in marriage is not about loving another person but about loving God.

Divorce also causes a lot of visible pain, both to the partners and to the children. One of the most common narratives of unhappy childhood begins "my parents divorced when I was..."

So although people understand that we all have failings, and that marriages often don't last, we still cry at movies where it happens.

Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :

Maybe it's because divorce is generally due to the personal moral failing of both spouses.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
...the reality that most Christians and non-Christians alike would not prefer to live in a society where divorce is not available, ...

They do? I don't know anyone who thinks that. Are you sure you mean that exactly? (e.g. they would prefer to live in a society where divorce is available)

I'm having trouble parsing your last para. also - any chance of rewording it?

[ 30. May 2012, 21:04: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Scrub that first question - I can see it's a straight double-negative now. Sorry, have been reading French stuff online and forgot to change gear.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

quote:
Why do most churches fail to see divorce as anything but a personal moral failing of both spouses?

Huh?

For starters: How is divorce a moral failing of a wronged spouse in the case of infidelity/neglect? My church, at least, isn't in the business of blaming both parties for failed marriages.

Perhaps more importantly, though: I think most thoughtful churches would say that the situations that cause divorces to happen are a function of living in a broken world where we're all either agents or victims of that brokenness -- sometimes both things at the same time. I think that's a more nuanced viewpoint than what is argued in the OP.

Posted by Frodgey (# 8890) on :

As a divorce who is preparing to marry a divorcee, where neither original marriage died because of a moral failing on our parts, I have to agree that the church does class divorce as a failure.

In my mind, I am a fallen creature and the failure of my marriage is something to be forgiven - as with other occasions where I fell short of where God wanted me to be. If the marriage has died - sometimes resurrection is not an option - even for christians.

Divorce is not the unforgiveable sin that many churches appear to make it - but it is in need of forgiveness.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

However, looking on the bright side, divorce is not viewed by churches in anywhere near the harsh light that it was even 20 or 30 years ago. I think church leaders have come to realise that, if they did, there would be even fewer people in the pews than there already are. And also because church leaders themselves have a significant number of failed marriages and remarriages between them.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Not only is it forgiven ...
What God has joined ...

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
Maybe it's because divorce is generally due to the personal moral failing of both spouses.

To some degree, yes. But divorce is almost never 50/50. Often one person wants the divorce a great deal more than the other. Often one person's particular and singular moral failing is, at the least, the immediate cause of the divorce.

Perhaps I'm a bit defensive because I have been divorced, on "biblical grounds" (i.e. adultery). And yes, it is important to the process of working through a divorce to accept your "stuff"-- recognizing & repenting for my sin and the way it contributed to the breakdown of the marriage. otoh, "it takes two to divorce" is a particularly unhelpful cliche that, legally, is simply Not True. And it hurts a lot of (relatively) innocent people when you talk as if it were.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bartolomeo:
Why do most churches fail to see divorce as anything but a personal moral failing of both spouses?

Most religious marriage services traditionally include the promise "... until death do us part."

The question I normally put to those seeking remarriage after divorce is this - what makes you think that you can keep your promise this time? (i.e. what has changed?)

Now they may well have a good answer to that question (e.g. LC cites the possibility that they were the innocent party when their partner committed adultery and therefore they didn't break their marriage promises) but I do think the question has to be faced.

I'm afraid that sentimental answers (e.g. this just feels different) don't quite cut it for me.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
Maybe it's because divorce is generally due to the personal moral failing of both spouses.

Yes, I know a woman who morally failed in her duty to stay with her physically abusive husband for the sake of the children.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by Bartolomeo:
Why do most churches fail to see divorce as anything but a personal moral failing of both spouses?
Most religious marriage services traditionally include the promise "... until death do us part."

The question I normally put to those seeking remarriage after divorce is this - what makes you think that you can keep your promise this time? (i.e. what has changed?)

Now they may well have a good answer to that question (e.g. LC cites the possibility that they were the innocent party when their partner committed adultery and therefore they didn't break their marriage promises) but I do think the question has to be faced.

I'm afraid that sentimental answers (e.g. this just feels different) don't quite cut it for me.

Yes. But I hope you do so gently.

Because I am a pastor, every single job I have interviewed for in the 23 years since my divorce, I've been asked that question. Every single time. Jobs I've gotten, jobs I haven't gotten (and, of course, I'll never know if that's why). Which means, for 23 years, I'm constantly having to re-recite yet again the narrative, the details of his sin and mine, the betrayal that I have worked hard to forgive and let go of, but every few years has to be resurrected and re-dissected yet again. Over and over and over again.

It's a good question. It's an important question. You should ask it. I understand why you're asking.

But just remember that the question itself carries with it a very high price tag.

[ 31. May 2012, 00:08: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Yes. But I hope you do so gently.

Absolutely.

Just to be clear. When I post on the ship like that I'm cutting to the chase. It bears little resemblance to the way I'd go about it in RL.

Posted by DangerousDeacon (# 10582) on :

The usual answer I get to the question: "Why is this time different" is along the lines of: I was young and stupid twenty five years ago, and I have now been with X for 20 years and the kids are telling us it is time to get married." Usually accompanied by a broad smile.

Do I need to know exactly what went wrong last time? Some times yes - in which case the person tells me why, because they need to tell me. My real concern is not with the past, but with their future. Sometimes, it is essential to know what went wrong, to make sure it does not happen again; but sometimes, that which is forgiven, may also be forgotten, or at the least put aside.

Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on :

I have no personal connection to divorce nor within family, only know people who have been divorced. Thus observations only:

- "Til death do us part" seems to to me to be 3 things. First, aspirational. Something to try to do, and of those I know who've divorced, they did try, and not faintly either. Mostly really hard. Even after misconduct of varying kinds.

Second, it is a statement of fact. You get married, and you carry the legacy of the relationship with that person with you for life. Internalized. The statement means you don't just forget it. It is not taken lightly, at least I've never heard of anyone who has taken marriage with a grain of salt.

Third, if you have children, then it really means that you will be dealing with your spouse/ex for ever. Thus, a repeat of my second point, it is a statement of fact, or maybe encompasses a bit of a "thou shalt" in the sense of you must deal with this person you married for ever.

- I do think things have changed drastically over the centuries. It is not the same as it ever was. Marriage was once a brief time to make children before you were dead in your 20s somewhere. Life expectancy in 1900 was about 50, 1800 about 35, and before that, less. I always like to think of Romeo and Juliet who married after one day's acquaintance. If they lived, Juliet probably had about 8 years. People lived amongst their sewage and that of animals, washed seldom, and women died in childbirth. Men might have several years more. Thus, it really meant something for parents (or father more likely) to give a daughter away in her mid teens. Couldn't have her back, other kids needed parents. Time to cleave to another.

- We have become slightly more civilized in our regulation of human relations over time. We don't force couples in most jurisdictions to prove the person they're divorcing is a bad person, violent or unfaithful. Women are not 'given' to anyone: we've removed that strong bit of sexism. We allow people to stop their marriages before that happens with no-fault divorce. This doesn't mean that some people don't do Bad Things. Just that it is not required to prove this. Further, we have promoted self actualization, and maximization of personal potential and happiness. There is another edge to this, where some might reject and ditch a spouse because the spouse hasn't helped them on their personal journey sufficiently, but I've not heard that one either. I have heard about the emotional climate being oppressive, the spouse being insensitive over the long term, and there being little change despite efforts.

Thus, I don't fault people who are divorced or contemplating same. People in pain deserve support, sensitivity and kindness, not preachifying, judgementalism, and not projection of personal ideals, ideas or interpretations of the 'way things are supposed to be' or 'what God wants'. God just wants our best efforts and has the capacity to forgive all and accept all (and I am a hypocrite myself, because I don't follow the model of Jesus well at all, including on these boards.)

[ 31. May 2012, 01:56: Message edited by: no_prophet ]

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

I think it a sadness rather than a condemnation when someone faces divorce. As others have said, it has a painful ripple effect and an emotional grieving process for its loss, for all concerned including children, which lasts a lifetime but lessens in effect.

What do the words 'What God has joined together...' actually mean? Someone I know thinks that there's a spiritual connection which can't be severed, as the sacrament of marriage is a permanent fixture. Someone I used to know thought that sexual intercourse forged a permanent spiritual connection between the people concerned, and that it was enough to be considered married.

When I see the way old people who have been married for a very long time look after each other as they deteriorate in health, I'm humbled by their staying power and patience. They're heroes and heroines imv.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bartolomeo:

Why do most churches fail to see divorce as anything but a personal moral failing of both spouses?

Because divorce is condemned by the scriptures?

Adultery is the only valid cause for divorce in the NT.

[ 31. May 2012, 13:12: Message edited by: Evensong ]

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

What about where one spouse is abusive, then?

quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
Maybe it's because divorce is generally due to the personal moral failing of both spouses.

Well, at least one of them, usually (see example above).

Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by Bartolomeo:

Why do most churches fail to see divorce as anything but a personal moral failing of both spouses?
Because divorce is condemned by the scriptures?

Adultery is the only valid cause for divorce in the NT.

divorce in NT times had some pretty serious negative consequences for women, and was done purely at the whim of the husband. the injunction in this case can be seen as preventing men from dumping no longer desired wives.

However, I think the stronger injunction is not so much about divorces (which does have an "escape clause" in it) bur rather re-marriage after divorce. Jesus appears to think of divorce as purely a legal concept, that the true joining of the two is irreversible, and therefore re-marriage after divorce is adultery, because the person is still married.

I have not personally experienced any tut-tutting re: divorce in my church, other than the fact that it's sad a marriage ended, or, perhaps, some criticism of one spouse or the other if there is some "guilt" involved. but the fact of dirvorce itself is not seen (in my experience) as a problem (it's a solution to a problem.. perhaps not the best one, certainly not the only one, but a solution).

In my own mind both marriage and divorce are really not about the legality. they are about commitment. one can be committed to each other and not married (in law or church), and a couple can become un-commited wihtout going through the legality of a divorce.

My own first marriage ended long before I was legally divorced. I actually had no particular interest in the legal aspects of divorce until I wanted to re-marry. For that matter, I would not have bothered with the legality of re-marriage, were it not for immigration and some other issues that were just easier with all the right legal paperwork in place.

My own church does not require any form of "divorce", however a previously married person does have to request permission from one's Bishop in order to re-marry (in the church). and there is a limit of three church marriages (including after death of a spouse). and of ocurse, priests can't be re-married (but they CAN divorce, since that is purely a legal thing and not a church thing, and I know several divorced priests).

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

I'm amazed at this discussion. [Eek!]

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Well, it makes a change from some complaining that (conservative) churches are lax when it comes to divorce when compared to same-sex marriage, I suppose...

Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
Maybe it's because divorce is generally due to the personal moral failing of both spouses.
Yes, I know a woman who morally failed in her duty to stay with her physically abusive husband for the sake of the children.

I put the word 'generally' in that sentence for a very good reason. The situation you describe is precisely the sort of thing I had in mind. However, we are living in the days of 'no-fault' divorces and easy-in, easy-out relationships so the 'generally' still stands, I'm sorry to say.

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :

I would urge all of you to read the excellent link posted by Martin PC Not.

There is emerging on this thread the usual false dichotomy, brought to its pinnacle by orfeo's post. That is, in the discovery of sin on a partner's part, or in orfeo's example, ongoing abuse, either staying in the home or divorcing are the only two options. They aren't.

When the creeping effects of my many sins finally exploded in my family, we separated. We both entered counseling and pastoral care, separately, and though at the time my wife thought we would certainly be divorced, as time went on, she saw changes in me and we eventually reconciled. Before we did, she spoke with the people who had been working with me, and all assured her they'd be there for us and that as afar as anyone could tell, the change was real and the repentance genuine.

She told me she never had peace about divorcing me. As for me, I knew I still had vows to fulfill come hellfire or high water, and so continued to financially support her to the best of my ability; a court order would have provided her substantially less than I was providing, she'd found early on.

We have gone on to a better marriage than we ever had before, though consequences still rock us from time to time.

And to underscore something: In the case of abuse, if you can't get to the authorities and have the abuser removed, then you (and the children) must GET OUT. You have to establish the boundary that you will not allow this to occur. It is clearly allowed in the Scriptures, as Martin's link points out. You can remain committed to the marriage, but the abuser has to know that without genuine change and accountability, they are not coming back into the home. Further, YOU need counseling and pastoral support for this as well, and it won't happen overnight, if at all - you must be prepared to accept that divorce is highly likely, and you must be prepared and strengthened to stand your ground.

My 2 cents.

Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by Bartolomeo:

Why do most churches fail to see divorce as anything but a personal moral failing of both spouses?
Because divorce is condemned by the scriptures?

Adultery is the only valid cause for divorce in the NT.

Not sure. Abandonment gets a look in I think, as does abuse (i.e. a health or life threatening absence of peace).

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Daron:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by Bartolomeo:

Why do most churches fail to see divorce as anything but a personal moral failing of both spouses?
Because divorce is condemned by the scriptures?

Adultery is the only valid cause for divorce in the NT.
Not sure. Abandonment gets a look in I think, as does abuse (i.e. a health or life threatening absence of peace).

Precisely. See Martin's link, it's worth the read, solid Biblical analysis.

Posted by Bartolomeo (# 8352) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:

When the creeping effects of my many sins finally exploded in my family, we separated. We both entered counseling and pastoral care, separately, and though at the time my wife thought we would certainly be divorced, as time went on, she saw changes in me and we eventually reconciled.
...

We have gone on to a better marriage than we ever had before, though consequences still rock us from time to time.

Bully for you. Over time, nearly all marriages encounter solvable problems.

A goodly share of them encounter problems that are not solvable. Many of these involve physical abuse, substance abuse, or mental illness. Some involve a realization by one spouse that they are not heterosexual. Some reach the point where, due to one spouse's infidelity, gambling, or whatever, there is a loss of trust so profound that it cannot be reversed.

There is a widespread belief that, absent physical abuse, all broken marriages can be fixed. That belief is extremely damaging.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Martin's link makes great sense.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Yes, I know a woman who morally failed in her duty to stay with her physically abusive husband for the sake of the children.

Yes,me too. My promises at the time (1958) were made with no reservations, but I should have taken myself and children away from it sooner than I did, but you just didn't do that then.
I stayed for a total of 8 years by which time I was strong enough to make the move and have never regretted it for one moment.
That was, of course, a very long time ago!

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

Tom of Tarsus
As you say, there has to be a genuine willingness to change ....
I am so pleased that both my sons have good, stable relationships.

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :

Well, indeed (and perhaps I should not have made a personal story out of it - there was no intention to brag, but just to show that it is possible). And oftentimes, in cases of abuse, separation and firm boundary setting are enough to wake the abuser up. If not, on with the divorce and your life; Scripture and common sense both allow this.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

Now they may well have a good answer to that question (e.g. LC cites the possibility that they were the innocent party when their partner committed adultery and therefore they didn't break their marriage promises) but I do think the question has to be faced.

ISTM, if more people faced these questions prior to marriage, there would be fewer divorces. This is not, not, NOT, judging anyone, save perhaps myself. Simply that I believe honest examination of why we want a particular relationship would help guide us towards better relationships. Would have saved me problems. Fortunately there were no legal papers involved.
To the OP, I like MPC's link. The principals therein make sense even from a non-Christian perspective.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no_prophet:

Life expectancy in 1900 was about 50, 1800 about 35, and before that, less.

Even if that was true it doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. Liife expectancy is a sort of average, and is brought down by high infant mortality, so even in places with life expectancies of 30 or so that doesn't mean that lots of 20-40 year-olds are dropping dead in the street. Yes there was higher young adult mortality in the middle ages and early modern times, especialy of women in childbirth, but not that much.

Also over a longish period of time life expectancy is brought down by high death rates in wars, famines, plagues and so on. So its not so much that lots of people are dying of disease or startvation all the time, more that everyone does quite well for years or decades, then a whole load die at once. There are bad times and good times. The late 13th century and especially the 14th century were pretty shit... but the 12th century was on thew whole quite a healthy one to be in.

IN the mid-19th century in the USA the life expectancy at birth was less than 40. But life expectancy at age 20 was about 60 - if you stayed alive you still had about 40 years left on average.

Its just not true that long-lived marriages were rare. They were not. Maybe rarer than now, but there were a great many of them.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Martin's link makes great sense.

No, it doesn't. Instone-Brewer is trying to have his cake and eat it to. First he is trying to convince us that Jesus is speaking some specific legalese that deals with a conflict between the Hillelites and Shammaites. For this he relies on assuming that the audience would be aware of that legalese, because both camps had so many followers. And then, when in Instone-Brewer's interpretation Jesus simply adopts one of these well-known and popular positions (namely Shammai over Hillel), suddenly everybody is shocked to the point of rejecting marriage altogether. That simply makes no psychological sense whatsoever. Whereas a straightforward "no legalese" reading makes perfect sense: Jesus goes even further than Shammai, and even the disciples wonder if then anybody would dare to marry at all. And that is the straightforward reading, for Jesus had been bringing in the heavy guns: he had told his audience that Moses had allowed divorce only because of their hardness of heart, and he had made explicit reference to Genesis to overcome one part of Moses with another. There is just no way all this could be in preparation for simply repeating the standard Shammaite position. Whatever you make of the unchastity clause, this has to be kept in mind.

You can also read John Piper's refutation, if you prefer.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

On the other side of the coin, I've been playing Devil's advocate on another board with some ConEvos who insist that Marriage™ is a life-long partnership between man and woman, end of (in the context of that particular Dead Horse).

A 'plain reading of scripture' seems to indicate the following: divorce is permitted in limited circumstances. Remarriage is not. You get one shot at it. If you screw up, that door is forever after closed.

And yet there is some considerable and liberal interpretation that permits remarriage after divorce, and remarriage after that: as someone pointed out here, it smacks of special pleading by the majority to get out a hard teaching that applies to them.

For the record, I think that Martin's link shows a generous and compassionate view, and the comments below it certainly indicate that such exegesis isn't universally shared.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

A 'plain reading of scripture' seems to indicate the following: divorce is permitted in limited circumstances. Remarriage is not.

Contradiction in terms. The "certificate of divorce", the get, is a man giving his wife permission to remarry. (He didn't need it himself because polygyny was legal)

That's David Instone-Brewer's main point. The idea that there could be a divorce forbidding remarriage is reading a later meaning back into the text. (Which is why what IngoB just said is irrelevant)

The literal, plain, obvious meaning of what Jesus is recorded as sang in the Gospels is that a man can give his wife permission to marry another man only of there has been some (unspecified) sexual misdemeanour. If he does it in any other circumstance he causes her to commit adultery - because the whole point of the thing is that she is going to marry someone else. He then only commits adultery himself if he marries another after getting rid of her for no reason.

[ 31. May 2012, 16:06: Message edited by: ken ]

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
A 'plain reading of scripture' seems to indicate the following: divorce is permitted in limited circumstances. Remarriage is not. You get one shot at it. If you screw up, that door is forever after closed.

This 'plain reading of scripture' is of course precisely the RC position. The only sophistication is that a "divorce with no remarriage" is called "separation", because the separated spouses do not need to formally remarry if they are reconciled (because the bond established by the "union of one flesh" can after Jesus not be broken any longer). And that is what I think is primarily happening in the NT, Jesus is going beyond Shammai (to the shock of the disciples) by disallowing remarriage and thereby turning divorce into separation. Though the separation into distinct "legal" categories ("divorce" vs. "separation") came only later.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

A 'plain reading of scripture' seems to indicate the following: divorce is permitted in limited circumstances. Remarriage is not.
Contradiction in terms. The "certificate of divorce", the get, is a man giving his wife permission to remarry.

Yes, but. Jesus was saying that the get was wrong on this very point.

Ingo, just above, reiterates the historic Christian position on marriage and divorce. I have a great deal of attraction to that position for myself. I wouldn't inflict it on others.

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :

Well (referring to IngoB's post), as usual some really educated person comes along and finds something better!

But to your point, sir, I agree: Divorce is a last, last resort. The Piper article seems to feel that the article Martin posted gives partners an easier "out". But they will only take it if that is what they are looking for, maybe that's why I didn't see it from Piper's viewpoint.

IMHO, and as I recall, when I recited my wedding vows to love, honor, cherish, etc, there was no add-on that says, "As long as you do, too." It was two people taking life-long vows unconditionally. That's deadly-freakin'-serious in today's colloquialisms. As young, as sensless, as sinful, as messed up as I was, I knew when I said those words (and actually for some time before that) that I would die beside this woman, or she beside me. As Piper rightly points out, Christ always calls us higher.

Today many people think marriage is supposed to bring them pleasure. They think that if they are having differences with spouse, or their spouse isn't making them happy, they are in a "Bad relationship" or some such. But look at your vows. VOWS. Your word and bond to your spouse, your community, your future children, and above all, to the Almighty. It is NOT conditional on what your spouse does. YOU have vowed to love, honor, cherish, forsake, and you have vowed to do so until death. So as LilBudda said, consider wisely, get the input of others, do your church's premarital thing, before you make that commitment.

There will be times when you will be miserable. I've said it here before, I forget who I got it from, but the guy said "There are no easy answers to the problem of two sinners living in intimate companionship." Marriage is not supposed to make you happy, it is, like all things, a sanctifying and very trying course of life.

And sometimes you may have to separate in order to overcome a serious problem, such as adultery or abuse; and sometimes the other spouse won't be willing to do what it takes. And sometimes divorce will happen. But IMHO it ought to be a lot more rare than it is today.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
This 'plain reading of scripture' is of course precisely the RC position.

That is not true

quote:

The only sophistication is that a "divorce with no remarriage" is called "separation", because the separated spouses do not need to formally remarry if they are reconciled (because the bond established by the "union of one flesh" can after Jesus not be broken any longer).

True, but its clearly not what Jesus is talking about in this passage.

quote:

And that is what I think is primarily happening in the NT, Jesus is going beyond Shammai (to the shock of the disciples) by disallowing remarriage and thereby turning divorce into separation.

That is written nowhere in the Bible. I must have read this passage hundreds of times, in many translations and in my admittedly very poor Greek, and trust me, its not there.

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
[Yes, but. Jesus was saying that the get was wrong on this very point.

Apart from porneia. That's what it actually says.

Which, whatver exactly is meant by it, seems to be a much stronger position than legally obtained in those days - so the disciples can react as they do - but isn't, quite, the RC doctrine.

Posted by Bartolomeo (# 8352) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:

IMHO, and as I recall, when I recited my wedding vows to love, honor, cherish, etc, there was no add-on that says, "As long as you do, too." It was two people taking life-long vows unconditionally. That's deadly-freakin'-serious in today's colloquialisms. As young, as sensless, as sinful, as messed up as I was, I knew when I said those words (and actually for some time before that) that I would die beside this woman, or she beside me. As Piper rightly points out, Christ always calls us higher.

Tom, just so I can understand your view better, is it your view that you would still be bound by your marriage vows if your wife were to leave your household and refuse any contact from you?

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

ken, the only way that you can insist on your reading as "plain" is by ignoring the rest of the NT, which is clear (in particular 1 Cor 7:10-11), by ignoring the context of the verse, in which Jesus is definitely gearing up to deliver a major change of teaching (explicitly contradicting Moses!), and finally by ignoring the historical context and the psychological reaction of the audience, by claiming that an audience of Pharisees and the disciples would be shocked by a reiteration of standard Pharisaic teaching.

In fact, the simplest thing one can say is just that your position is somewhere on the spectrum between Hillel and Shammai. What you think about divorce and remarriage would not have been in the slightest challenging to them. (OK, except for the total equality of men and women in this matter perhaps. But that very much was not under discussion in scripture.) You have exactly returned to the standard of the Pharisees in the audience Jesus was addressing. This cannot be it. You may be sceptical about whether my position is right, but it is certain that yours is flawed here.

I see as only way out the Orthodox way, which "accommodates" remarriages as "second rate". Basically, there one is taking the same interpretation approach to all this as for the "over the top" revisions in the Sermon of the Mount ("You have heard that it was said to the men of old ... But I say to you ..."), and does not consider such ideals as entirely binding. I do no think that this works, because this one just gets too much confirmation elsewhere in scripture, is too explicitly dismissed by Jesus (with God it is possible) and is too contrary to the witness of the early church. But at least their position can be sustained in argument. Yours really can't. The reading you propose is not plain, but plainly wrong.

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :

No, I would not; I believe that Scripture allows that. But I could still choose to stay committed, praying for my spouse, seeking support for myself (and kids, if need be) and who knows what tomorrow may bring?

How long do I wait? A week? A month? In my view, the seriousness of it requires a considerable amount of time, I'm not going to say a year and a day or anything like that, but time nonetheless.

Posted by Bartolomeo (# 8352) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I think it a sadness rather than a condemnation when someone faces divorce. As others have said, it has a painful ripple effect and an emotional grieving process for its loss, for all concerned including children, which lasts a lifetime but lessens in effect.

I can think of a few married then divorced couples I have known where the marriage ended in divorce mainly on lifestyle grounds, that is, where one of the people involved decided to "trade up" to a more desirable spouse. I suppose that sadness and outrage are probably the appropriate responses to the respective spouses in this situation.

But such situations are rare.

More common is the situation where the marriage has been failing for a long time, with several attempts at counseling and resolution of any substance abuse or mental health problems that are present.

Better, in those cases, to be supportive of the affected spouse, and even happy for them that they have made a decision that allows them to move on from whatever special form of living hell they were in.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I would think there is a position between "Divorce should never be allowed EVER," and "Divorce is perfectly fine" along the lines of "Divorce is bad, but occasionally necessary for pastoral reasons."

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

imho....
It's amazing how often those outside the situation can be 'so very certain' of what happens in a failed marriage.

Or rather what should have happened in order for it not to have failed.

Or maybe what other people 'should' do, when their marriage is crumbling apart around their ears.

Walk a mile and all that...
The answers are not nearly as straightforward as i am reading here.

[ 31. May 2012, 18:14: Message edited by: Ethne Alba ]

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

Tom of Tarsus
I admire the thought and sincerity which
appear evident in your posts here.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
imho....
It's amazing how often those outside the situation can be 'so very certain' of what happens in a failed marriage.

Or rather what should have happened in order for it not to have failed.

Or maybe what other people 'should' do, when their marriage is crumbling apart around their ears.

Walk a mile and all that...
The answers are not nearly as straightforward as i am reading here.

I find it's often useful to mentally replace "God wants . . . " with "I want . . . " whenever I come across that phrase. Resorting to "God said so" is pretty much a tacit admission that whatever's being argued is either arbitrary or unsupportable strictly on its own merits.

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :

Thank you, SusanDoris. My screen name should telegraph that I am a miserable bastard arrested by the Lord; some people have to learn the hard way, and I'm one of them.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
ken, the only way that you can insist on your reading as "plain" is by ignoring the rest of the NT, which is clear (in particular 1 Cor 7:10-11), by ignoring the context of the verse, in which Jesus is definitely gearing up to deliver a major change of teaching (explicitly contradicting Moses!), and finally by ignoring the historical context and the psychological reaction of the audience, by claiming that an audience of Pharisees and the disciples would be shocked by a reiteration of standard Pharisaic teaching.

OK. Why are we not referring to Matthew 19:

quote:
Matthew 19:3 The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?”

4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

7 They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?”

8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality,[d] and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”

10 His disciples said to Him, “If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”
[d] or fornication

Isn't the plain teaching in Matthew that when the cause of the divorce is adultery it is lawful to remarry?

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Isn't the plain teaching in Matthew that when the cause of the divorce is adultery it is lawful to remarry?

This is not the plain teaching of scripture at all. It is merely what one may consider the most obvious meaning of one verse, Matthew 19:9, if one reads it in complete isolation, and knows nothing else about scripture or Jewish history. If one knows scripture, then one firstly knows that other scripture - including other scripture directly involving Jesus - appears to be in contradiction with this, but in agreement with each other. And that though this is clearly a major teaching. At a minimum, this means that there is a serious problem here, even if one does not see it in that one verse alone. If one reads the context just preceding, then it is abundantly clear that Jesus is gearing up to a clear distinction from Moses based on principle. How can he then deliver what is basically nothing but Moses' teaching? Certainly a major faction of Pharisees did understand Moses in exactly that way. That would make Jesus incoherent, which we cannot allow. Also the reaction of the Pharisaic crowd and the disciples is also incoherent with Jesus simply reaffirming Shammaite teaching. The whole response becomes absurd then: how can one doubt that anyone would still like to marry under the supposed rules of Jesus, when plenty of Jews were already marrying under just those rules? Finally one can note that Matthew 19:9 itself uses porneia for the exception, but moicheia for the judgment of the actions. Only the latter is the specific Greek term reserved for adultery, the former could refer to different kinds of sexual misbehavior. An explicit distinction has been made by the sacred author here, so we must find out why.

All this is what I still consider plain reading of scripture. It's just not focusing on one verse ripped out of context and throwing away all one's knowledge. When it gets to resolving this issue, and to finding the real teaching there, then this is perhaps not as plain. But what is plain from scripture is that one cannot read Matthew 19:9 in what may appear most obvious. That just doesn't work, whatever may actually work...

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

I have already spewed up details of my own marriage breakdown on a recent thread so won't inflict them on this one.
Prior to separation/divorce I was highly judgemental where failed couples were concerned. Having it happen to one's self is one heck of an object lesson in humility.

Humility is what Jesus is about , He is not about incarcerating people , against their will, into cast-iron institutions that have the potential to create anger and misery.

Having said that I'm still saddened when I see couples heading for divorce. Marriage has been around since the earliest civilisations and is therefore deeply embedded in our psyche .

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

The plain teaching in Matthew 19 is that the then popular, Hillelite, inverted, perverted interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1(*), no fault, no reason = any reason divorce (for men only of course), was evil, Godless, loveless.

Of course the divorce rights built in to Jewish and therefore Christian marriage aren't touched by this or anything else Jesus said: Exodus 21:10-11 (NLT) 10 If a man who has married a slave wife takes another wife for himself, he must not neglect the rights of the first wife to food, clothing, and sexual intimacy. 11 If he fails in any of these three obligations, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.

Affirmed, of course, by Paul.

(*) Deuteronomy 24:1 (NLT) Suppose a man marries a woman but she does not please him. Having discovered something wrong with her (a euphemism for "a cause of immorality," or, more literally, "a thing of nakedness.", i.e. she was soiled goods not sold on that basis), he writes her a letter of divorce, hands it to her, and sends her away from his house.

[ 31. May 2012, 22:02: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Isn't the plain teaching in Matthew that when the cause of the divorce is adultery it is lawful to remarry?
This is not the plain teaching of scripture at all. It is merely what one may consider the most obvious meaning of one verse, Matthew 19:9, if one reads it in complete isolation, and knows nothing else about scripture or Jewish history.

I'm aware of the arguments that you raise here, and that this is why the RC policy is no divorce, period.

It is not a strong argument, though, in my opinion. It has clearly not been accepted in protestant Christianity.

The fact is that Jesus makes this statement in Matthew 5 and 19, as it is recorded. The fact that He leaves out the part about fornication in Mark 10 and Luke 16 does not mean that it is not assumed, since this was the accepted doctrine among many scholars.

I don't accept that this was an issue simply because the context demands that Jesus contradict the Pharisees' expectations.

The question put to Jesus, and Jesus' response, makes it clear that many people understood Moses to have taught that a man may simply give his wife a certificate of divorce. Jesus' clear refutation of that idea is what causes the disciples' response. It doesn't matter that this is in agreement with what many of the Pharisees thought.

Beyond that, though, it is clear throughout Scripture that adultery is what destroys marriage. So it is infidelity that releases the injured party from its bonds, allowing them to lawfully marry again.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The question put to Jesus, and Jesus' response, makes it clear that many people understood Moses to have taught that a man may simply give his wife a certificate of divorce. Jesus' clear refutation of that idea is what causes the disciples' response. It doesn't matter that this is in agreement with what many of the Pharisees thought.

That really is self-contradictory nonsense, Freddy. You cannot claim that Jesus affirms the position of one of the two major groups of Pharisees. Many Jews may have understood that divorce is easy, following Hillel. Many Jews to the contrary understood that divorce was possible only because of adultery, following Shammai. Both positions can be - and were - defended from the OT, from Moses. Given that Pharisees were asking, this is quite likely the very context of the question. There would be nothing remarkable about Jesus siding with Shammai. There would be no reason for Jesus to set up an explicit and strong rejection of a teaching of Moses. The whole structure of this passage is unequivocally in the mode of the Sermon of the Mount, except with added drama providing even more oomph. Whatever happened here cannot have been "business as usual", but what you claim very much was business as usual.

Incidentally, I really like John Piper's analysis of the exception clause. I hadn't heard that one before, but it makes perfect sense to me.

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Beyond that, though, it is clear throughout Scripture that adultery is what destroys marriage. So it is infidelity that releases the injured party from its bonds, allowing them to lawfully marry again.

Freddy, the NT speaks unequivocally and explicitly against remarriage, except possibly in Matt 19:9. You know that. So why do you speculate theologically against scripture? You must defend your position on Matt 19:9 first, or your case is already lost.

To repeat, I think Protestants should look towards the Orthodox. Their position is perhaps defensible as "pastoral accommodation".

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I think the protestant position actually is a form of pastoral accommodation (this may not be the best, but it is better than the alternatives,) with some pretty questionable biblical rationalisation thrown in.

Broken marriages are always a paradox, whether people continue to live within them or not. They do not signify any longer the mutual love of Christ for his church, and the church for Christ. A shell remains, the heart has been knocked out of it. That's the paradox at the heart of the pastoral accommodation. What is the cost of preserving the general indissoluble principle in individual cases? There are times when not only does the personal cost seem far too high, but in also the description of what is left as a marriage seems like a contradiction in terms. A miserable prison, an insoluble incompatibility; these seem more like the truth of it.

So I think that pastoral accommodation is not only right, but essential.

Remarriage is often described as a triumph of hope over experiences. The desire to bless and strengthen and support that hope (often born out of much wounding) seems to me to be redemptive in intent. I suppose there is a blessed inconsistency in that, also.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
So I think that pastoral accommodation is not only right, but essential.

Sure. Yet the question is always how much "wiggle room" there is before accommodation becomes sin. I think there is no universal answer to that. And frankly, it seems to me that most of Protestantism has gone for "wiggle as much as you like" here, whereas scripture seems to be unusually tough about removing all wiggle room on this occasion. We do not usually get Jesus explicitly holding the line against His disciples. We do not usually get St Paul explicitly invoking the Lord's authority for an uncompromising statement.

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Remarriage is often described as a triumph of hope over experiences.

Yet it is clearly a triumph of experiences over hope. This is really what I'm pointing to with referring to the Orthodox. They remarry in sackcloth and ashes. There is nothing "triumphant" for them, they do not celebrate failure. Adopt this attitude, and I may believe that in spite of scripture pulling no punches you may have the Lord's mercy on your side. He is a sucker for contrite hearts...

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Contrite hearts is right. Trading in for a new model is wrong. Endorsing the latter is not wise.

But it's a bit hard to figure what to do generally. Pastoral concern often means, for a period, encouraging couples at odds with one another to work at reconciliation. But you do get to the humpty-dumpty point. All the kings horses and all the kings men can't fix this one. One heart or another, or both, has got too hardened. Sometimes that just has to be recognised.

We love imperfectly.

[ 01. June 2012, 11:14: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

This is worth a separate comment. The wiggle room thing bothers me too, even when I seem to be wiggling! Compassion seems to have its own gut-wrenching guidelines.

Not exactly germane, but poignant given my onboard name. The row between Paul and Barnabas, which was a big one, suggests that for Paul, Mark was a liability to the mission and the mission was vital, Barnabas was arguing "stick with him, he's made some mistakes but he'll learn". A good friend of mine in the church tells me that he values having an old softie like me around, even if my heart often rules my head. He reckons his head has often overruled his heart, with detrimental and regrettable results. He reckons we each need to hear each other, even if it makes things more difficult. There's something in that.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

What's missing from this discussion is the observation that, in Jesus' day, divorce was especially devastating to women -- they couldn't initiate divorce, while men could divorce wives for any reason -- being bad cooks; being vaguely annoying; being less youthful and attractive than third cousin Moishe's pubescent daughter. And once divorced, women were damaged goods; unless they had the good fortune of a sympathetic father or brother who would take them back into the family fold, they were out of luck in a patriarchal culture; destined for lives of begging or prostitution. (And this scenario plays out every day today in places like the Middle East.)

In a more equitable society, and one where marriages are based on a sense of partnership/companionship rather than on patriarchal business transactions and inter-clan relationship massaging, the dynamics of a broken marriage are different. Certainly when minor children are involved, or when one party in the marriage has shouldered most of the financial responsibilities, it can still be a financially devastating and socially dislocating event, and something that both partners and their spiritual and other counsel would hope that they'd avoid; but in some cases divorce is a "least bad" option among many. And I find the RC party line not only excessively rigid, but unnecessarily punitive -- and a bit disingenuous (I know people who've gotten annulments or been denied same for reasons that, shall we say, have diminished whatever respect I've had for the pastoral/theological integrity and gravitas of their church leadership.)

[ 01. June 2012, 12:23: Message edited by: LutheranChik ]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

What the emergent church is saying

and you're factually wrong of course IngoB. As you know.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
and you're factually wrong of course IngoB. As you know.

Ha-ha-ha.

I am absorbing what IngoB said and trying to grasp that point of view. I half think that he must be joking, but I guess that his argument is the accepted view in Catholicism. I have never heard it before.

The best explanation that I had heard before was that Catholicism rejects Matthew's version on the basis that his mention of "except for fornication" in chapters 5 and 19 was a later addition, and that what Luke and Mark say takes precedence.

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :

I don't know, Martin; and further, it's important that we see that in certain respects the lot of us here aren't that far apart - we agree that marriage is serious, and only grave circumstances should allow it to be dissolved. I liked the article you originally posted and then Piper's analysis makes sense from a different standpoint.

That standpoint is that Jesus often set up impossible situations to point out that we cannot keep the law by our own efforts; we can't "earn" our salvation. So here, we see a very high standard set, by Piper's analysis and the RC position.

Then too , I see a couple of different viewpoints on the thread. The viewpoint of a pastor, "What do you do with the couple...", and what I've often perceived as two different outlooks on all manners of sin.

It is natural, when in a painful marriage situation, to be looking for a way out. And there are bad situations where, as I've noted, separation may be absolutely necessary. But again, the attitude should be "separate to save, if at all possible." The love of God is always seeking new ways to meet it's objective; Christ's love sanctifies his Bride so that He may present it to Himself glorious, without spot or blemish (Eph. 5 25 etc).

You can either be looking for a way out, and a way to justify it; or be looking for a way to continue to love, tough, creative, sanctifying love. As I've said, marriage is not primarily to make us happy, but to sanctify us, to make us more like Jesus. If we are to love our neighbor, and even our enemy, how much more so the one who has shared our bed?

Blessings,

Tom

ETA: no Freddy, they do not take it as a later addition, see Piper's analysis in IngoB's later link.

[ 01. June 2012, 14:09: Message edited by: TomOfTarsus ]

Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Because I am a pastor, every single job I have interviewed for in the 23 years since my divorce, I've been asked that question. Every single time. Jobs I've gotten, jobs I haven't gotten (and, of course, I'll never know if that's why). Which means, for 23 years, I'm constantly having to re-recite yet again the narrative, the details of his sin and mine, the betrayal that I have worked hard to forgive and let go of, but every few years has to be resurrected and re-dissected yet again. Over and over and over again.

That's a shame. In 23 years, have you not come up with an interview-friendly way of saying "that's none of your damn business"? Perhaps something like, "a lot of water has passed under the bridge since then (next question, please)"?

Particularly in view of the long time involved, I can only perceive such interrogation as an unwarranted act of prurience.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
and you're factually wrong of course IngoB. As you know.
Ha-ha-ha.

I am absorbing what IngoB said and trying to grasp that point of view. I half think that he must be joking, but I guess that his argument is the accepted view in Catholicism. I have never heard it before.

The best explanation that I had heard before was that Catholicism rejects Matthew's version on the basis that his mention of "except for fornication" in chapters 5 and 19 was a later addition, and that what Luke and Mark say takes precedence.

John Piper's explanation makes the most sense to me. Scholars usually assume Luke and Matthew used Mark as a source. Matthew altered Mark's account for a reason. Porneia is usually not translated adultery. What's so hard to understand?

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

I'd always understood porneia to encompass any kind of sex outside marriage, including pre-marital fornication and bestiality, but also of course including adultery.

Posted by Bartolomeo (# 8352) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Contrite hearts is right. Trading in for a new model is wrong. Endorsing the latter is not wise.

But it's a bit hard to figure what to do generally. Pastoral concern often means, for a period, encouraging couples at odds with one another to work at reconciliation. But you do get to the humpty-dumpty point. All the kings horses and all the kings men can't fix this one. One heart or another, or both, has got too hardened. Sometimes that just has to be recognised.

I agree with this in the context of a true pastoral relationship where someone is trying to decide whether to proceed with divorce. The only thing to watch is that pastors aren't necessarily perfect judges of whether reconciliation is still possible or worthwhile (as when the cost of reconciliation is giving up one's faith, values, etc).

Once a decision is made a more supportive approach might be called for.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bartolomeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Contrite hearts is right. Trading in for a new model is wrong. Endorsing the latter is not wise.

But it's a bit hard to figure what to do generally. Pastoral concern often means, for a period, encouraging couples at odds with one another to work at reconciliation. But you do get to the humpty-dumpty point. All the kings horses and all the kings men can't fix this one. One heart or another, or both, has got too hardened. Sometimes that just has to be recognised.
I agree with this in the context of a true pastoral relationship where someone is trying to decide whether to proceed with divorce. The only thing to watch is that pastors aren't necessarily perfect judges of whether reconciliation is still possible or worthwhile (as when the cost of reconciliation is giving up one's faith, values, etc).

Once a decision is made a more supportive approach might be called for.

Absolutely. Support means recognising where the responsibility for difficult decisions lies - and that is not with the supporters. I've lived through a few of these situations with others and the worst thing any of can do is "take over". Even, and I've experienced this, where one partner or another wants you to do just that. You can't live other folks' lives for them.

[ 01. June 2012, 15:56: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I am absorbing what IngoB said and trying to grasp that point of view. I half think that he must be joking, but I guess that his argument is the accepted view in Catholicism. I have never heard it before.

I'm not aware of any "officially approved" RC exegesis of this verse, and I would not like my opinion to be mistaken for it. The RCC considers the typical Protestant position on this to be wrong, that is official.

I'm also very much not joking...

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The best explanation that I had heard before was that Catholicism rejects Matthew's version on the basis that his mention of "except for fornication" in chapters 5 and 19 was a later addition, and that what Luke and Mark say takes precedence.

I have never heard that explanation before as "Catholic"! Seriously.

One of the most common "Catholic" explanations in my experience is along the lines of Piper's explanations, basically saying that the initial porneia concerns some kind of inherently illicit union, for example, an incestuous one. What was new about Piper's idea (for me) was to relate this to the marriage of Joseph and Mary instead, i.e., Matthew defends the reaction of Joseph that only he reports. I find that quite ingenious.

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I'd always understood porneia to encompass any kind of sex outside marriage, including pre-marital fornication and bestiality, but also of course including adultery.

Not wrong, but the point is that here Matthew explicitly contrasts porneia with moicheia. It could be that this is about including more reasons for divorce than just adultery. Note though that this is getting pretty, uhmm, "special" if this is about a woman who is already married. She can't fornicate any more, and so beyond adultery we are really looking at much less likely sexual misbehaviour (like bestiality, as you mentioned). To me this seems a bit too "laywer-precise". The alternative that the contrast is intended to refer to some problem with the marriage process itself (fornication during betrothal, as Piper speculates, or illicit unions, as I've more often heard) seems quite good to me. Add to that the fact that nowhere else in the NT do we get this exception, and I think the case is strong.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
ETA: no Freddy, they do not take it as a later addition, see Piper's analysis in IngoB's later link.

Yes, evidently not. But what I had heard before is what Beeswax said.

Piper's analysis was helpful in understanding Ingo's point of view. And I'm guessing that this is the more orthodox Catholic view.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

IngoB thyat last post is stuff that simply isn't in the Bible. You are making it up, or whoever taught it was.

Its just not there. There is no attempt in the whole New Testament to make the kind of precise legalistic nitpicking rules about adultery and fornication that you have just gone on about, any more than there is the slightest hint of this imaginary weird state of being divorced but not allowed to marry. Its just not there. You are straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.

And as for saying read the whgole of it and not just a few passages taken out of contet that is EXACTLY what you are doing.

What mention there is of divorce in the NT is pretty consistent. Its bad. Its wrong. You shoudln;t do it. It is almost always a sin to divorce, though there are extreme situations in which it is allowable. Though the NT does not go anywhere near defining what those situations are. If a man divorces his wife in any other coircumstances than one of those rare situqtions then he forces her to commit adultery. That's all pretty clear.

What the NT does not say, and what the churches (or the Western churches) have added to it, is this novel idea that there is such a thing as divorce that does not permit remarriage. In effect they have been saying noit just that divorce is wrong - which it is of course and the Bible is clear on that - but that doivorce doesn't really exist. So that someone who is divorced must carry on pretending to be married, even if their spose has dumped them and gone off and married someone else and is never coming back. Tha tbiut of cloud-cuckoo-land is not in the Bible, it was added later. And it goes too far. It t is beyond what we have the Scriptural authority to require of people.

Which is pretty much what David Instone-Brewer realised when he was researching this stuff.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The question put to Jesus, and Jesus' response, makes it clear that many people understood Moses to have taught that a man may simply give his wife a certificate of divorce. Jesus' clear refutation of that idea is what causes the disciples' response. It doesn't matter that this is in agreement with what many of the Pharisees thought.
That really is self-contradictory nonsense, Freddy. You cannot claim that Jesus affirms the position of one of the two major groups of Pharisees.

I'm trying to think how this could be self-contradictory nonsense simply because Jesus sided with a known position. That would not make it "business as usual." The context clearly shows that the dominant understanding of Moses' words was that a man could simply give his wife a certificate of divorce.

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Beyond that, though, it is clear throughout Scripture that adultery is what destroys marriage. So it is infidelity that releases the injured party from its bonds, allowing them to lawfully marry again.
Freddy, the NT speaks unequivocally and explicitly against remarriage, except possibly in Matt 19:9. You know that.

Why leave out Matthew 5?

quote:
Matthew 5:31 “Furthermore it has been said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality[e] causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.

The interesting thing here is that this anticipates the discussion in Matthew 19 and makes it clear what understanding Jesus is refuting. He refutes the teaching of Moses allowing divorce for any number of reasons and limits it to adultery.

What amazes me, though, about the position that adultery, or "porneia", is not grounds for divorce and remarriage, is that it loses sight of the point of the law in the first place.

The whole point is to prevent adultery and preserve marriage. The result of breaking the law about divorce is adultery. So if adultery has already taken place the law's effect has already been enacted.

Saying that the injured party is not free to divorce and remarry on pain of being labelled an adulterer is like charging an innocent person with arson when someone else has already burned down the house.

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
So why do you speculate theologically against scripture?

Scripture explicitly recognizes that adultery destroys marriage.

The Lord says in Isaiah:

quote:
Isaiah 50:1 Thus says the LORD: “Where is the certificate of your mother’s divorce, Whom I have put away?"

God put her away because of her "adulteries" and He will then "marry" another.

He says the same in Jeremiah and Hosea:

quote:
Jeremiah 3:8 Then I saw that for all the causes for which backsliding Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a certificate of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but went and played the harlot also.

Hosea 2:2 “Bring charges against your mother, bring charges; For she is not My wife, nor am I her Husband! Let her put away her harlotries from her sight,"

The pattern is that adultery is grounds to lawfully end the marriage, and Jesus recognizes this explicitly in Matthew.

The strange thing to me is that Mark and Luke do not contradict Matthew, they just don't mention the details. So why do mental gymnastics to nullify the obvious teaching in Matthew? [Confused]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

What is the argument about? Ingo has granted (with, in my opinion, entirely appropriate skepticism) the possibility of the Church granting remarriages for pastoral reasons.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Tom, believe me, I know. As grievous sinner and sinned against by life, I know.

To IngoB I don't exist, which is interesting. He's still wrong. I don't mean his entire traditional argument in this instance, even though it is, but as a matter of fact of which he will be WELL aware but NEVER acknowledge. That's part of what he brings to the party. Arrogance which evokes mine.

His heterodoxy and my heteropraxis are a bad combination. We do so bring out the worst in each other. I can't respect his lack of Petrine respect in his Petrine supremacy and so it iterates.

If the only thing ever said on the subject in the NT was, Matthew 5:31-32 (NIV) Divorce
31 “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’
32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Even that would be open to interpretation and we can do that here in the light of Jesus' penchant for being hyperbolic in a highly culturally constrained environment. Being conservative I would still probably have to desert my wife. In fact I could not have married her. And for a time I couldn't.

But it is FAR from the only mention of divorce and remarriage in the NT. Which cannot be considered without the OT and Jesus' milieu. What happened in the West (and the East) after that is neither here nor there. Unless the Spirit writes the law of the Medes and the Persians in stone.

Not hearts. And not the law of Love.

How do we reconcile Matthew 5 and THEN Matthew 19 ? And then that which IngoB can't admit ?

This is ALL about disposition, as ALWAYS. What we bring to the party. If we can be grown up about this and admit all of our biases, our prejudices, our traditions, our inculturation and start again by including being open about our epistemologies then may be we can get the shape of this object. Some can't possibly do that as they own it all.

Whatsoever is not of faith is sin, so we must be careful with each other. We must respect each other. Which on this issue is going to be difficult. Especially with some people.

Can we be grown up about this ? Acquit ourselves as adult Christians ? See what emerges ?

What Spirit are we sinners going to bring to this ? Which Christ ?

And in answer to the OP, it's till death one way or the other. Marriages die.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
What is the argument about? Ingo has granted (with, in my opinion, entirely appropriate skepticism) the possibility of the Church granting remarriages for pastoral reasons.

It's about Matthew's exception clauses in chapters 5 and 19. Ingo seems to have reservations about what they mean exactly.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
IngoB thyat last post is stuff that simply isn't in the Bible. You are making it up, or whoever taught it was. Its just not there.

How on earth can you claim that it is "just not there"? Matthew clearly and deliberately distinguishes "porneia" and "mocheia". It's there in plain sight. It's just in the very words of scripture. What that means one can argue about. You answer, apparently, "nothing". I consider that unlikely.

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
And as for saying read the whgole of it and not just a few passages taken out of contet that is EXACTLY what you are doing.

This is discussed in multiple places in the NT. None of them admits any exception. Only Matthew does. (Freddy is right, in two verses not one. Thanks. Two verses which are basically identical and which both contain the distinction between "porneia" and "mocheia". No accident, that.)

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
What the NT does not say, and what the churches (or the Western churches) have added to it, is this novel idea that there is such a thing as divorce that does not permit remarriage.

The novelty comes straight from Christ: "To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband) - and that the husband should not divorce his wife." (1 Cor 7:10-11) What are you to do if you separate (though you shouldn't)? Repeat after St Paul, it's just what the RCC says you should do.

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
So that someone who is divorced must carry on pretending to be married, even if their spose has dumped them and gone off and married someone else and is never coming back. Tha tbiut of cloud-cuckoo-land is not in the Bible, it was added later.

I get the pain of that. Really, I do. And as I've indicated, I see some chance of arguing for the Orthodox accommodation.

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The context clearly shows that the dominant understanding of Moses' words was that a man could simply give his wife a certificate of divorce.

The context shows nothing of that sort. Rather, your position could only survive if that were so. But we know that historically it was not so. Rather, one of the two dominant Pharisaic factions (the Shammaites) then was precisely teaching what you would like to declare as the "surprising" teaching of Jesus. Furthermore, the very question asked of Jesus very likely is a direct reference to their conflict with the Hillelites. So the context is one where these well-known, opposing positions - which are followed by many - are on the table. You may just barely get away with pretending that the disciples were banking on Jesus siding with Hillel. But you are still left with the fact that Shammai certainly did not see the need to argue against Moses. So why would Jesus in coming to the same conclusion? It really makes no sense.

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Why leave out Matthew 5? ... The interesting thing here is that this anticipates the discussion in Matthew 19 and makes it clear what understanding Jesus is refuting. He refutes the teaching of Moses allowing divorce for any number of reasons and limits it to adultery.

You are quite correct, my bad. Matthew says essentially the same thing twice in parallel verses. Of course, your interpretation of limiting divorce to adultery is also explicitly wrong for Matt 5, because Matthew consistently distinguishes porneia (the exception clause) from moicheia (the proper word for adultery). Whatever Matthew is doing, he's definitely not limiting divorce to adultery - for then he would have used moicheia in all three cases.

(Just out of curiosity, do you actually hold that the only legitimate reason for divorce is adultery? And do you think that a divorced woman is free to remarry?)

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Saying that the injured party is not free to divorce and remarry on pain of being labelled an adulterer is like charging an innocent person with arson when someone else has already burned down the house.

The Lord indicates why this makes sense in his interpretation of Genesis, cf. Matt 19:6.

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
What is the argument about? Ingo has granted (with, in my opinion, entirely appropriate skepticism) the possibility of the Church granting remarriages for pastoral reasons.

I would like to think that I expressed myself even more carefully than that. But yes, I see the possibility that something like the Orthodox position is viable concerning scripture, and may provide the best "pastoral" solution. That also is the only thinkable compromise between the denominations.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

The Episcopal Church requires permission from one's bishop to remarry. I doubt they tend to be very strict about it, but clearly some Protestants have had the idea.

[ 01. June 2012, 18:15: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
What the NT does not say, and what the churches (or the Western churches) have added to it, is this novel idea that there is such a thing as divorce that does not permit remarriage.
The novelty comes straight from Christ: "To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband) - and that the husband should not divorce his wife." (1 Cor 7:10-11) What are you to do if you separate (though you shouldn't)? Repeat after St Paul, it's just what the RCC says you should do.

Sorry Ingo, that is a truly horrible bit of cherry-picking. Paul is not saying that a person should never get divorced under any circumstances, he is speaking to a very specific context (namely that it is not grounds for divorce if you become a Christian and your spouse doesn't).

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
To IngoB I don't exist, which is interesting.

You continue to call me a liar to my face. I do not take kindly to that.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
(Just out of curiosity, do you actually hold that the only legitimate reason for divorce is adultery? And do you think that a divorced woman is free to remarry?)

Yes and yes. The "injured party" is free to remarry in the church, whether male or female. These are the rules we follow in my denomination.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The context clearly shows that the dominant understanding of Moses' words was that a man could simply give his wife a certificate of divorce.
The context shows nothing of that sort.

Yes it does. Even more so in Matthew 5 where Jesus specifically refutes what "has been said." If it wasn't the dominant understanding why would He be correcting it?

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Of course, your interpretation of limiting divorce to adultery is also explicitly wrong for Matt 5, because Matthew consistently distinguishes porneia (the exception clause) from moicheia (the proper word for adultery). Whatever Matthew is doing, he's definitely not limiting divorce to adultery - for then he would have used moicheia in all three cases.

I'm not sure why the distinction between these two words is meaningful. I hear what you are saying, but can't see that it bears on the argument. Sex is sex, and illicit sex is a category that is almost universally understood.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
... illicit sex is a category that is almost universally understood.

That depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

--Tom Clune

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
Sorry Ingo, that is a truly horrible bit of cherry-picking. Paul is not saying that a person should never get divorced under any circumstances, he is speaking to a very specific context (namely that it is not grounds for divorce if you become a Christian and your spouse doesn't).

1 Cor 7:1-7: General discussion of continence vs. marriage.
1 Cor 7:8-9: "To the unmarried and the widows..."
1 Cor 7:10-11: "To the married..."
1 Cor 7:12-15: "To the rest ... if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever ... If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever ..."

St Paul is clearly going through the different possible cases after discussing continence and marriage in general. He first addresses the continent. Then he addresses the Christian married, as is explicit in his very words, as well as simply by the context of listing the various cases. Next he makes an implicit distinction between Christian and non-Christian marriages, by calling those who are married to an unbeliever "the rest", i.e., neither continent nor (sacramentally) married. And incidentally, what St Paul is telling the Christian part of these "rest of couples" is exactly what he told the Christian couples: namely to not divorce! It is only if the unbeliever breaks up the (non-sacramental) marriage, then the Christian may be considered as free again.

I have no idea how you come to your interpretation that St Paul is talking to the spouses of unbelievers in 1 Cor 7:10-11. That is not there in the text, at all.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
To IngoB I don't exist, which is interesting.
You continue to call me a liar to my face. I do not take kindly to that.

Spotted it, IngoB

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:

He's still wrong. I don't mean his entire traditional argument in this instance, even though it is, but as a matter of fact of which he will be WELL aware but NEVER acknowledge. That's part of what he brings to the party. Arrogance which evokes mine.

You called him a liar, Martin. "He WILL be aware, but will NEVER acknowledge".

You don't get to do that, here. That's a C3 offence. If that's your view, take it to Hell. But leave it out, here.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

[ 01. June 2012, 19:06: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
(Just out of curiosity, do you actually hold that the only legitimate reason for divorce is adultery? And do you think that a divorced woman is free to remarry?)
Yes and yes. The "injured party" is free to remarry in the church, whether male or female. These are the rules we follow in my denomination.

So for example domestic violence would not count as a reason for divorce in your church? And I take it that you extend the exception clause to the woman, though that appears not to be what Matthew is saying?

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Yes it does. Even more so in Matthew 5 where Jesus specifically refutes what "has been said." If it wasn't the dominant understanding why would He be correcting it?

No, it doesn't. Jesus is not quoting any scriptural reason whatsoever for divorce in Matt 5:31 itself. And just before that we had him discussing adultery. There are three possibilities: 1. He is not mentioning a cause, because he wants to talk about the Hillel-type of easy divorce. 2. He is not mentioning a cause, because he has just talked at length about adultery, and thus is considering a Shammai-type of adultery-only divorce. 3. He's not mentioning a cause, because he wants to talk about the concept of divorce in general. At best then this is ambiguous. I think 2. and 3., which support my interpretation, are both more likely than 1.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
So for example domestic violence would not count as a reason for divorce in your church?

That's right. Domestic violence is a reason for separation, according to our rules, not divorce.

However, in extreme situations all bets are off.

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
And I take it that you extend the exception clause to the woman, though that appears not to be what Matthew is saying?

Yes. We take all of these statements as applying equally to men and women even though the original is written as if spoken to men.

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Yes it does. Even more so in Matthew 5 where Jesus specifically refutes what "has been said." If it wasn't the dominant understanding why would He be correcting it?
No, it doesn't. Jesus is not quoting any scriptural reason whatsoever for divorce in Matt 5:31 itself.

Yes He is. When He says "Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce" He's paraphrasing Deuteronomy 24:

quote:
Deuteronomy 24:1 “When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house,.."

This is also what the Pharisees refer to in Matthew 19:

quote:
Matthew 19:7 They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?”

The clear expectation is that this is the norm, but Jesus says differently.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The clear expectation is that this is the norm, but Jesus says differently.

I'm not sure whether you are aware of it, but Dt 24:1 is of course precisely the occasion of the debate between the Hillelites and the Shammaites. What is translated there as "some indecency" in our English is erwat dabar, or "nakedness anything/matter". According to the Hillelites, this is to be understood as nakedness (standing for sexual scandal, including adultery) or anything else that is disagreeable. According to the Shammaites, this is to be understood as a nakedness confirmed by witnesses (because in Dt 19:15 dabar is used to indicate the criminal matter which must be established by two or three witnesses).

So a reference to Dt 24:1 is nothing but a reference to the Hillel-Shammai controversy. And it remains the case that you claim for Jesus the position of Shammai. Except that Shammai would insist that the sexual scandal be confirmed independently by witnesses before it can count as a reason for divorce, i.e., if there is a difference at all then Jesus would be less tough than Shammai.

As now repeated several times, this makes no sense in context. What makes sense is that Jesus is even tougher against divorce than Shammai. What makes sense is that he goes beyond the entire discussion of Dt 24:1 by returning to Gen 2:24. It is really hard to see how your "plain reading" of allowing divorce for adultery could work. Since good alternatives to this "plain reading" exist, they must get preference.

Posted by Bartolomeo (# 8352) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
So for example domestic violence would not count as a reason for divorce in your church?
That's right. Domestic violence is a reason for separation, according to our rules, not divorce.

However, in extreme situations all bets are off.

Freddy, are you suggesting that there is such a thing as "mild to moderate" domestic violence, and that such violence should not be seen as grounds for divorce?

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bartolomeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
So for example domestic violence would not count as a reason for divorce in your church?
That's right. Domestic violence is a reason for separation, according to our rules, not divorce.

However, in extreme situations all bets are off.
Freddy, are you suggesting that there is such a thing as "mild to moderate" domestic violence, and that such violence should not be seen as grounds for divorce?

I've been a pastor for thirty years and I've only ever run into one case of domestic violence. As it was extreme, no one questioned the right of the wife to divorce and she was later remarried in the church.

But my reasoning is not about what I think is just and fair. We go by what Jesus said.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The clear expectation is that this is the norm, but Jesus says differently.
I'm not sure whether you are aware of it, but Dt 24:1 is of course precisely the occasion of the debate between the Hillelites and the Shammaites....So a reference to Dt 24:1 is nothing but a reference to the Hillel-Shammai controversy.

Yes I am aware that the controversy rests on that passage. But I'm also aware that the way that Jesus refers to it indicates a clear position.

Jesus refutes the understanding that a certificate of divorce could be given for any reason, while saying that Moses granted it because of the hardness of their hearts.

So Jesus is clearly changing what Moses said, not simply picking sides in a controversy.

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I've been a pastor for thirty years and I've only ever run into one case of domestic violence.

Wow. Either you have an exceptionally well-behaved congregation, or you're not paying attention.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

Interestinglly, the only thing that my ex didn't do was commit adultery!
When I came to live here and started going to the parish church, I explained that I was divorced and would quite understand if I was refused communion, but the Vicar at the timesaid that, goodnss no, I was most welcome as a communicant.
Whether I could have re-married there, I don't know, as the situation didn't arise.

[ 02. June 2012, 06:13: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Jesus refutes the understanding that a certificate of divorce could be given for any reason, while saying that Moses granted it because of the hardness of their hearts. So Jesus is clearly changing what Moses said, not simply picking sides in a controversy.

I'll try one more time, then I will give up.

The position "that a certificate of divorce could be given for any reason" is just one main interpretation of what Moses said in Dt 24:1, that of Hillel. The other main interpretation of what Moses said in Dt 24:1, that of Shammai, is "that a certificate of divorce only could be given for sexual scandal (in particular adultery)".

That was the state of play on what Moses said, those were the major factions of interpretation.

If you now claim that Jesus said "that a certificate of divorce only could be given for sexual scandal (in particular adultery)", then it is explicitly and definitely not true that "Jesus is clearly changing what Moses said". Because he is explicitly and definitely confirming Shammai, which was one of the two leading interpretations of what Moses said concerning the topic, at the time.

And if you are trying to claim that the difference between Jesus and Shammai was that Jesus restricted this to adultery only, then you run into the problem that the Greek in Matthew is exactly the wrong way around for this to be true. Because Matthew uses porneia, a more general term for sexual misconduct, in the exception clause, whereas he uses moicheia, the specific term for adultery, in the judgement. If Matthew makes this distinction, and he explicitly does, then in order for Jesus to restrict divorce to adultery only vs. Shammai, he would have had to say moicheia in the exception clause. But he said porneia, and that once more would be a perfect match to what Shammai said. (Unless you go "Catholic" and claim that porneia is here supposed to specifically indicate illicit unions, fornication during betrothal, or the like. But then no more divorce for adultery.)

In a nutshell, the position you attribute to Jesus is one of the two leading interpretations of Moses' words among the Jews in his time, that of Shammai. The escape route to being more specific than Shammai is ruled out explicitly by Matthew's choice of terms. You do have a problem.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

No I don't. That's pure projection. And you do not like 'it' anyway. It's what you bring to our party IngoB. Consistently. And I don't like 'it' either. But hey, you can't choose your family can you ? Not that you accept me at all as at least your equal brother in Christ of course. Though I must count you my superior despite your superiority.

Your legalistic approach to I Corinthians 7 is a start.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If you now claim that Jesus said "that a certificate of divorce only could be given for sexual scandal (in particular adultery)", then it is explicitly and definitely not true that "Jesus is clearly changing what Moses said". Because he is explicitly and definitely confirming Shammai, which was one of the two leading interpretations of what Moses said concerning the topic, at the time.

I'm starting to think that you believe that the Shammai/Hillel controversy is a significant factor here. So significant that it nullifies what Matthew quotes Jesus as saying.

When I say that Jesus is clearly changing Moses' rules it is because this is what Matthew quotes Jesus as saying:

quote:
Matthew 5:31 “Furthermore it has been said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I say to you..."

Matthew 19:8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so..."

I realize that you see Shammai/Hillel as the only relevant factor here, but surely Jesus' words must count for something.

Jesus follows both of these comments about Moses with His statement that includes the "exception clause." I'm not clear whether you think that this simply didn't happen or whether the insertion of "porneia" instead of the usual word for adultery somehow nullifies the statement.

Are you sure that our understanding of Shammai/Hillel and how it interacts with Jesus' conversation here is correct?

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I've been a pastor for thirty years and I've only ever run into one case of domestic violence.
Wow. Either you have an exceptionally well-behaved congregation, or you're not paying attention.

I'm sure that there have been plenty of things that haven't come to my attention or the attention of the pastors I've worked with. I'm just saying what I have run into.

So I see and hear a lot about domestic violence in various media, but haven't experienced it in my congregations. It hasn't really come up as a cause for divorce, except in the one flagrant case.

One difficulty about this as a cause for divorce is that almost everyone I know who divorced their spouse felt that they were in some sense a victim. People do treat each other badly. But it is hard to judge at what point criticism and stupidity become abuse severe enough to warrant disregarding Jesus' words, severing all ties to the person, and marrying another.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

Some churches seem obsessed by sex and marriage. As far as I am aware, the Orthodox churches give you three gos at marriage.

I read somewhere that monogomy was unnatural, especially for males of the species.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I'm starting to think that you believe that the Shammai/Hillel controversy is a significant factor here. So significant that it nullifies what Matthew quotes Jesus as saying.

Nullify? [Roll Eyes]

I'm doing nothing but trying to determine what this exception clause might mean! You seem to think that this is clear. That is definitely not the case, and I'm bringing in the Shammai/Hillel background because it can help resolve exegetical ambiguity in scripture there.

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I realize that you see Shammai/Hillel as the only relevant factor here, but surely Jesus' words must count for something.

My whole argument is based on saying that Jesus' words must mean something: they must break the mold of Jewish scripture interpretation, or this piece of scripture becomes incoherent. Therefore, we cannot allow an interpretation of the exception clause which in every detail is nothing but a straight repetition of one of the two leading Jewish scripture interpretations. Given that one can interpret the exception clause differently, one must. That is an argument which puts Jesus' words - and their challenge - at the centre stage throughout.

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Jesus follows both of these comments about Moses with His statement that includes the "exception clause." I'm not clear whether you think that this simply didn't happen or whether the insertion of "porneia" instead of the usual word for adultery somehow nullifies the statement.

Of course it happened. And porneia does not "nullify the statement". It however nullifies your interpretation of the statement. Because it means, given the Shammai/Hillel context and given that Matthew specifically distinguishes porneia from moicheia, that Jesus cannot have simply allowed "divorce for adultery " there. Whatever is going on in these verses, it is not that.

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Are you sure that our understanding of Shammai/Hillel and how it interacts with Jesus' conversation here is correct?

No, I am not sure at all what the precise interaction is. There could be a lot more subtlety here still. I think these verses are just overloaded with meaning and subtexts from the Pharisaic tradition, making them incredibly difficult to get right. However, I'm completely sure that "straight reading" typically given to the exception clause cannot work. That just renders this whole passage incoherent. One way or the other, one must avoid Jesus simply parroting Shammai.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
I read somewhere that monogomy was unnatural, especially for males of the species.

You can find more or less anything quoted somewhere if you look hard enough, Sebby. The questions are, was it a properly conducted investigation, what was it looking at, and how did it analyse its findings. Popular magazines and newspapers are awash with junk on popular topics like this. I'm not saying yours was, just that we would need to know where this insight came from to comment on it any further.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
No I don't. That's pure projection. And you do not like 'it' anyway. It's what you bring to our party IngoB. Consistently. And I don't like 'it' either. But hey, you can't choose your family can you ? Not that you accept me at all as at least your equal brother in Christ of course. Though I must count you my superior despite your superiority.

Your legalistic approach to I Corinthians 7 is a start.

Host Hat On

Martin, that is a clear continuation of the personal animus that I told you not to continue here. Final warning. Take it to Hell, or drop it. One more shot like that and you get reported to Admin for the C6 offence of dissing a Host. You've been around here long enough to know you can get sent ashore for a while for doing that.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

Host Hat Off

[ 02. June 2012, 12:05: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Sir.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

Research or not, I certainly think so.

The very idea of being stuck with someONE of any sex for a period of time makes my flesh creep. One wants variety.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
However, I'm completely sure that "straight reading" typically given to the exception clause cannot work. That just renders this whole passage incoherent. One way or the other, one must avoid Jesus simply parroting Shammai.

I guess an obvious question is about the sources of our information about Shammai and its relative dominance in the discussion. A straight reading of Matthew would suggest that the alternative was dominant since in both Matthew 5 and 19 this is the position that Jesus refutes.

How do we know which position was dominant? Is this information as reliable as Matthew?

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
Research or not, I certainly think so.

The very idea of being stuck with someONE of any sex for a period of time makes my flesh creep. One wants variety.

Well, if you are going to argue that you want variety then nobody is in a position to disagree. It merely remains for me to point out that until you can find some decent peer-reviewed evidence for the original assertion, you are -

i) arguing from the particular to the general, which is a logical fallacy, and

ii) you are doing it by using a psychological projection.

Against you, I would point out that the data on marriages quite unequivocally points towards them being beneficial to their participants as a class* in many ways that no other arrangement (or lack of one) approaches. Also, the majority of marriages still survive till the death of one of the partners, and the percentage of marriages surviving has in fact been increasing gradually since around 1995.

(* there are individual exceptions of course, some of which have been discussed above. Maybe you are an exception?)

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

It is possible to manipulate statistics, and one only has to look at recent marriages (or rather couplings-up) to see that the failure rate is quite significant.

Psychological projections can be startling accurate.

One only has to look at Derby and Joan sitting next to each other in the village pub to see it as as most undesirable concept.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

unequivically?

A little strong for sensible research.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

*unequivocally

Pissed at a Jubilee party

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

In Vino Veritas, then!

OK, I shall take it that your current state may be leading to some hyperbole here. Yes, "unequivocal" is a strong claim, but it is one supported by the data. Statistics can indeed be manipulated, but you need to convince yourself that is exactly what the original research finds.

So give yourself half an hour and read a literature review on the subject.
Such as this one.

quote:
Psychological projections can be startling accurate.

One only has to look at Derby and Joan sitting next to each other in the village pub to see it as as most undesirable concept.

Psychological projections are only ever accurate if and when the person doing it is typical of those the image is being projected upon. Which is clearly not the case here (see review above).

As to Darby and Joan - sounds better to me than the option of being stuck indoors into a lonely old age, having one's dribbling inconsequences attended to by unsympathetic hired help. YMMV.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
How on earth can you claim that it is "just not there"? Matthew clearly and deliberately distinguishes "porneia" and "mocheia". It's there in plain sight. It's just in the very words of scripture.

He doesn;'t "distinguish" them in the sense of giving them two distinct and defined meanings. He uses two different words. Neither you nor I know exactly what was covered by"porneia" and its almost certainly a category that overlaps with adultery. There is no hint of legalisic definition-mongering here.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
What the NT does not say, and what the churches (or the Western churches) have added to it, is this novel idea that there is such a thing as divorce that does not permit remarriage.
The novelty comes straight from Christ: "To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband) - and that the husband should not divorce his wife." (1 Cor 7:10-11) What are you to do if you separate (though you shouldn't)? Repeat after St Paul, it's just what the RCC says you should do.

That command says exactly what I mean! If a wife leaves her husband he is not to divorce her! The divorce, the permission to remarry is not the same thing as the separation.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

It cannot be that the Father and the Son and the Spirit of compassion and mercy and forgiveness and understanding and repentance and life and discipline and order and sanity and decency and whatever we MUST invoke intend for broken, fallen people, who are brought to partial, broken repentance, maturity, healing, understanding in their irredeemable losses, irretrievable marital breakdowns, if they are fully open and known to each other (and then NOT, some things should not be said, but can be alluded to) not to remarry, with full counsel.

Even though Jewish women could have divorced their husbands, just as Christian ones can, for the same reasons, they didn't by the time of Jesus. Jesus did not in ANY WAY contradict Himself here with anything He said in Matthew 5:

Exodus 21:10-11 (NIV) 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.

What is the obvious Christian continuation and amplification of this ?

Unless WE declare that He did. On what authority ? Whose ? What authority did Paul have for going beyond the wooden, isolated, literal interpretation of Jesus on the Mount ?

Legalism to a Salfist degree, by strict abrogation, is easy. And doomed. For Matthew 5 to be immutable Matthew 19 cannot exist let alone I Corinthians 7 AND all of human experience, even at the time, not coverable by the cases except without destroying the spirit of the law of love behind them.

I resonate, to say the least, with ALL the pain above, with my own. All the pain I've caused and suffered. Others and myself. That will cover what, half of us here at least, one way or the other ? All I easily imagine. Victims. Victimizers. Both.

Very few of us will be unscathed in these matters ALL covered and NOT licensed in the blood of Christ.

A man who does not provide for his wife, does not love her, no matter how he feels that he does, has broken the marriage, it's over. If it cannot be reasonably redeemed, even if he repents of everything (infidelity, addiction (gambling, drinking, video games), selfishness, violence, remoteness, coldness, clinging desperation, controlling, abuse), if she cannot take him back, which is more than reasonable in many, many circumstances for the damage that has been done, the torrent has moved on.

Even HE may start again.

So say I and not the Lord.

And that is FINE by Him or He'd have made it VERY plain indeed for all time and all cases. Even for someone as invincibly ignorant as me.

Unless our understanding of compassion is completely wrong.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

IngoB, I think there's a problem about getting too stuck into the difference between moicheia and porneia. If one wants to be literal about this, the correct remedy for an adulterous wife is stoning, in which case there is no need to debate whether remarriage was permitted. In a society where polygamy was not yet forbidden, people would have found the idea of a husband that a husband could commit adultery against his wife rather than his mistress's husband, something that didn't make sense.

Suffice to say, legal debate could not have been in terms of divorce for adultery, because that would have gone against what the law required. If one wanted to talk about divorce rather than death for sexual infidelity, one would have had to use another word, even if everyone knew the activity they were talking about was usually the same one.

Although there's been quite a lot of argument about what porneia covered, nothing I've read is all that persuasive. Most writers seem to choose what they want it to mean and then argue for it.

My personal view, which makes sense socially and culturally, is that it covered any sort of indecent familiarity by a woman that shamed her husband. Obviously that includes adultery that hasn't been witnessed in flagrante. I don't know whether weddings in C1 Judea included the display of a sheet - remember, we're talking of a Mediterranean culture - but if so, I suspect it may also have included the immediate repudiation of a 'pre-covered' bride.

It's interesting that neither Piper nor anyone else who wants to argue from scripture for a strict view on divorce ever seems to advocate either:-
a. Death for adultery, or
b. Different rules for men and women.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

I think the recent(ish) book by Alan Bennett was probably quite acurate; most end up hating each other if they are still together at the end.

They go through the motions out of familiarity.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Sebby - may I suggest you find a quiet, darkened room and have a little lie-down? We can talk about this later.

Enoch wrote:

quote:
It's interesting that neither Piper nor anyone else who wants to argue from scripture for a strict view on divorce ever seems to advocate either:-
a. Death for adultery, or
b. Different rules for men and women.

I was following your (well, the entire) argument up to this point. But now you've lost me. Why would anyone seek death for adultery?

God's laws were what bound creation together for first century Judaism. And that went well beyond exhortations and requirements to humanity, to include the planets in their courses, the regular appearance of the sun and moon, and the fixing of the boundaries of land and sea. The laws kept chaos from breaking in.

It's already been mentioned that Jesus always seems to tighten laws up, not relax them. "You have heard it said that (insert something difficult here), but I say to you (insert something impossible). In fact he was pointing towards the underlying principles. Yet his yoke is easy, his burden is light. He railed against the Pharisees, who sought to heighten Torah observance but divided the community, where the law was intended to integrate it. That's what all those healings were symbolically about. The woman caught in adultery was simply told to stop it.

And here we are today with churches who on the one hand recognise precepts but are rigorists in application, and those who recognise the need for inclusion but move to jettison the point of the exercise. You might as well seek to abolish the law of gravity because it is harder on the obese. And all this is done in the name of integrity. What utter bollocks. Surely we are called to be compassionate towards those whose marriages have broken down. To help them, support them, and perhaps even help them see where it all went wrong, though most have probably worked that one out already. That's what integrity is all about. The rest is partisanship.

Different rules for men and women? The cognate passage in Mark - as well as the Pauline texts - already have this. Presumably as their audiences were primarily Roman, where the law on divorce worked in both directions. So the equivalent intent is already there.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Honest Ron, what I was trying to get at, is that the experts logic chop scriptural passages so as to produce an all-encompassing code of law on marriage and divorce which they say is God's true position - based on scripture or tradition depending on their standpoint. Yet at the same time, they leave out at least two of the things that a rigourist deduction from scripture - after their own lights - ought to oblige them to insist on.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Sorry Enoch - you're point seems fair to me. I didn't pick that up from Piper, though perhaps we are in agreement about rigorism in general.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I don't think anyone can be unmarried while both spouses live any more than one can be unbaptized, unshriven, or unordained. Matrimony is as act of God in the life of believers, and there is nothing humans can do to remove His decree from eternity.

Why is Jesus granting an exception in Matthew? It think that is part of this "pastoral provision" I have been talking about. People make mistakes, no matter how careful the Church might be in requiring premarriage counseling and all that. Or worse, people change and become abusive or unfaithful to each other. When a person can no longer serve as a priest, for whatever reason, he or she can cease serving as a priest, despite ordination, and stop fulfilling his or her vows before God to be a priest. Likewise, sometimes a couple cannot live up to a marriage.

Divorce, in that view, is a tragedy, and a result of sin, and while the Church might grant remarriage from time to time it does not seem that it ought to be "no big deal" or imagined to be approved of by the Christian Church.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
...you're point...

Did I really type that yesterday?
[Waterworks]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

NOBODY here, Zach, regards the failure of their marriages as no big deal.

Marriage is a HUMAN arrangement, contract (all of which is in the divine, whether known or not, very mainly not) with definitions of compliance. Promises are made. Some Christians are married before God. Or retake their vows, which is beautiful, on both becoming Christians.

Every BREACH of contract puts the marriage in limbo. EVERY broken promise. Some breaches CANNOT be sealed, healed. It's meaningless. If we get away from the spirit of ALL that God says on the matter, of which

Adultery (in Deuteronomy 24:1, affirmed by Jesus in Matthew 19)

Emotional and physical neglect (in Exodus 21:10-11, affirmed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 7)

Abandonment and abuse (included in neglect, as affirmed in 1 Corinthians 7)

Christianity Today, October, 2007
What God Has Joined
What does the Bible really teach about divorce?
David Instone-Brewer

is just the most literal part, we are being mere children, legalists. A marriage that is sundered, neglected, betrayed, killed is DEAD. The contract is null and void. Just like the Old Covenant marriage.

The most guilty party, IF there is one, who may indeed be 110% guilty, in such a failed, broken, dead, ended marriage may find repentance. Too late.

All cases are NOT covered by the three fingers of NT, although they certainly are if one holistically integrates the spirit of Deuteronomy and Exodus.

A Christian cannot be hard hearted as the motive for divorce. "I just don't love her any more". But being beaten by a drunken gambler is NOT being married to a Christian, no matter how many times a day that man 'repents'. Neither is being married to a man - or woman - who professes Christianity but makes no bones about not loving their spouse any more. Who proves it by words or sometimes worse, silence.

The breakdown of marriage is the greatest suffering I have ever known and I have known much. I can get REAL specific, REALLY detailed and you can judge.

In some senses you are RIGHT, a man cannot hold fire to his busom and not be burned by whom he has loved and lost.

In Christ there is forgiveness, there is new life. There IS remarriage.

So say I and not the Lord. Which is as He would have it.

[ 03. June 2012, 14:21: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

1) At a fundamental level, a strict ban on remarriage means that we are taking our oaths seriously: when we say 'Forsaking all others' we actually mean it. As the people of God, we should be reflecting the nature of God in how we behave. God doesn't break His word; we are His priests - therefore we should live as God lives.

2) One understanding of porneia in the Matthew context is to see it as a reference back to the Jewish law that a woman was expected to be a virgin at the time of her marriage. Thus:

quote:
13 If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her , dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” 15 then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. 16 Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.

20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.

Deut 22

So the idea is that if a Jewish Christian finds that his wife is not a virgin at the time of their marriage THEN AND ONLY THEN he has the right to divorce her. Note that Matthew is generally thought to be written to Christians of a Jewish background. And note that this makes sense of why Paul doesn't offer any exception - he's writing to Gentile Christians without that sort of background.

And of course THIS interpretation offers an explanation of how I Cor 7 fits with the Matthew passages - and the wriggling of Christians who want to allow remarriage is shown to be the special pleading that it so obviously is.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Rather interesting that today on a different message board in a different context, I was told that the MODERN Greek meaning of 'porneia' is simply 'naughty'. That you would, for example, tell off a misbehaving child for being 'porneia'.

I realise that the meaning of words could have changed a heck of a lot over two thousand years, but it does rather raise alarm bells about being firm as to what is or isn't covered by the term in the New Testament.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
1) At a fundamental level, a strict ban on remarriage means that we are taking our oaths seriously: when we say 'Forsaking all others' we actually mean it. As the people of God, we should be reflecting the nature of God in how we behave. God doesn't break His word; we are His priests - therefore we should live as God lives.

Ender I can see where you are coming but there's a flaw.

Are you saying that if a person has fundamentally broken their oath to you, you are still bound by yours? So if they go off and marry someone else, you are still bound to them. Remember, in those circumstances, even if the second husband dies, you cannot under Deut 24 be reconciled to your ex-wife.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Rather interesting that today on a different message board in a different context, I was told that the MODERN Greek meaning of 'porneia' is simply 'naughty'. That you would, for example, tell off a misbehaving child for being 'porneia'.

I realise that the meaning of words could have changed a heck of a lot over two thousand years, but it does rather raise alarm bells about being firm as to what is or isn't covered by the term in the New Testament.

Your post was almost simultaneous with mine.

Idiomatically, 'save for naughtiness' in the context of divorce, does mean in English approximately what porneia probably meant!

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
1) At a fundamental level, a strict ban on remarriage means that we are taking our oaths seriously: when we say 'Forsaking all others' we actually mean it. As the people of God, we should be reflecting the nature of God in how we behave. God doesn't break His word; we are His priests - therefore we should live as God lives.
Ender I can see where you are coming but there's a flaw.

Are you saying that if a person has fundamentally broken their oath to you, you are still bound by yours? So if they go off and marry someone else, you are still bound to them. Remember, in those circumstances, even if the second husband dies, you cannot under Deut 24 be reconciled to your ex-wife.

Given the way that God describes His relationship with the people of Israel, I would say that the parallel is exact.

PS - Enoch please note my footnote...

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Ender's Shadow - why pursue the irrelevance, the unreality, the untruth of (1) and that subsequent looping, self-devouring, self-reinforcing, cybernetic meaningless rationalization ? As for (2) how many angels can dance on a split hair ?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Rather interesting that today on a different message board in a different context, I was told that the MODERN Greek meaning of 'porneia' is simply 'naughty'. That you would, for example, tell off a misbehaving child for being 'porneia'.

I realise that the meaning of words could have changed a heck of a lot over two thousand years, but it does rather raise alarm bells about being firm as to what is or isn't covered by the term in the New Testament.
Your post was almost simultaneous with mine.

Idiomatically, 'save for naughtiness' in the context of divorce, does mean in English approximately what porneia probably meant!

Yes, but there's rather a presumption wafting through this thread that the naughtiness in question must have been sexual misbehaviour.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Rather interesting that today on a different message board in a different context, I was told that the MODERN Greek meaning of 'porneia' is simply 'naughty'. That you would, for example, tell off a misbehaving child for being 'porneia'.

I realise that the meaning of words could have changed a heck of a lot over two thousand years, but it does rather raise alarm bells about being firm as to what is or isn't covered by the term in the New Testament.

Are you sure you weren't having your leg pulled, Orfeo? So far as I am aware, porneia means prostitution in modern Greek. Do Greek parents really call their naughty children prostitutes? I can't find this use in any lexicon, but I am not a fluent Greek speaker and I think you should check that with someone who is. Of course this is of limited relevance to the debate as it is the Koine usage that is relevant here, but it would be interesting to know anyway.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
And of course THIS interpretation offers an explanation of how I Cor 7 fits with the Matthew passages - and the wriggling of Christians who want to allow remarriage is shown to be the special pleading that it so obviously is.

I must say, I'm surprised by the support from (presumably conservative) Protestants on this matter. I was really totally unaware that the Catholic position, or at least something like it, or perhaps just an appreciation thereof as an 'ideal', had a significant following among Protestants.

When I chanced upon the John Piper piece, I thought that I had found an exception that proved the rule. Now I'm starting to suspect that I'm ignorant about a movement within Protestantism, or perhaps even overlooking an entire tradition.

I would be happy to learn what the real situation is among Protestants, in order to update my knowledge about who actually claims what...

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Of course the absurd C17th English euphemism 'naughtiness' means sexual sin. It still does. We water down lust to being 'a bit naughty'. Or by being knowingly ironic. If you've been 'a bit naughty' inside marriage, i.e. strayed outside, you've breached the marriage contract. It stands in limbo. If you fail to provide, to fulfil your part of the BARGAIN, it does too. It's THAT precious. THAT fragile.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
And of course THIS interpretation offers an explanation of how I Cor 7 fits with the Matthew passages - and the wriggling of Christians who want to allow remarriage is shown to be the special pleading that it so obviously is.
I must say, I'm surprised by the support from (presumably conservative) Protestants on this matter. I was really totally unaware that the Catholic position, or at least something like it, or perhaps just an appreciation thereof as an 'ideal', had a significant following among Protestants.

When I chanced upon the John Piper piece, I thought that I had found an exception that proved the rule. Now I'm starting to suspect that I'm ignorant about a movement within Protestantism, or perhaps even overlooking an entire tradition.

I would be happy to learn what the real situation is among Protestants, in order to update my knowledge about who actually claims what...

Andrew Cornes, a CofE vicar when I was last aware is a British conservative evangelical who represents the absolutist strand in evangelicalism, and David Pawson has also stirred the pot on the issue in more recent years. Francis Schaffer spoke out on the issue as well from the Evangelical / Fundamentalist perspective. In practice most Evangelical pastors succumb to the flow and won't hold a hard line - just rant about homosexuality instead; one might even accuse them of transference... There are relatively few institutions that seriously commit to the conservative position; Pawson in that book reports that his absolutist teaching was interpreted from the stage as 'incomplete' when he was last allowed at Spring Harvest, and he hasn't been invited back. The CofE is just confused; the 1928 vote in Parliament gave incumbents the right to remarry divorcees over the strong opposition of the bishops. Most clergy tend to go for a blessing service after a civil ceremony; on a good day this will allow some hard questions to be asked - we don't have any system for recognising annulments like Rome - but one suspects that often they aren't.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

Should have explained that Andrew Cornes came out the Iwerne Minster camps that also spawned John Stott and other Anglican luminaries, so I suspect his view is quite mainstream in more conservative Evangelical Anglican circles.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

As a matter of interest (though not a lot), is that perhaps because the civil law retains the ability to declare a marriage null, and the CofE being the state church...

Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on :

Having spent some time immersed in a culture closely mirroring biblical times, I would say that Sebby has hit the nail on the head. You can't make sense of the text unless you know that divorce was the poor man's version of owning a prized version of a commodity.

Unfortunately, or fortunately, not everybody has the same opportunity I had, thanks to the Founding Fathers, victims of polygamy, whose first act, almost, was to ban the laws of primogeniture.

If we proceed on this course, I apologize in advance to the ladies for presenting views that basically treat women (and children, remember Laban squabbling over Jacob's theft? ) as property, chattel, and use examples that will be insensitive, hurting...

I've debated this topic extensively...

[ 04. June 2012, 17:04: Message edited by: footwasher ]

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

2) One understanding of porneia in the Matthew context is to see it as a reference back to the Jewish law that a woman was expected to be a virgin at the time of her marriage.

Indeed it is, but its not actually there in the text, it might well be another reading-back of later practice, its really rather hard to tell.

But also its quite its irrelevant to the point that neither you not IngoB have even approached attempting to answer, which is that the idea of divorce being mere separation rather than legal permission to remarry is a later invention.

Of course Jesus teaches that divorce is sinful, there is no doubt about that. As did the Prophets. But not that divorce is illusory.

Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on :

The reason poor men had to resort to divorce was that unlike the rich, when they bought an unsuitable wife (bride price), they couldn't buy a second wife (like Jacob) and absorb the loss incurred with their first purchase. They could only afford the upkeep of one wife.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Rather interesting that today on a different message board in a different context, I was told that the MODERN Greek meaning of 'porneia' is simply 'naughty'. That you would, for example, tell off a misbehaving child for being 'porneia'.

I realise that the meaning of words could have changed a heck of a lot over two thousand years, but it does rather raise alarm bells about being firm as to what is or isn't covered by the term in the New Testament.
Are you sure you weren't having your leg pulled, Orfeo? So far as I am aware, porneia means prostitution in modern Greek. Do Greek parents really call their naughty children prostitutes? I can't find this use in any lexicon, but I am not a fluent Greek speaker and I think you should check that with someone who is. Of course this is of limited relevance to the debate as it is the Koine usage that is relevant here, but it would be interesting to know anyway.

I have no reason to think I was having my leg pulled, no. It could of course merely be wrong or misreported information. Or it could in fact be right.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Well, yes, I was trying to keep the possibility open - it's just that I couldn't find any reference to it when I looked. And it does look unlikely.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I have no reason to think I was having my leg pulled, no. It could of course merely be wrong or misreported information. Or it could in fact be right.

But Ron's point is that it has little relevance to the discussion of a koine word.

In fact it is a logical fallacy so common it even has a name - reverse-root etymology. Using the contemporary usage of a word either to read back the meaning or to the muddy the waters is a common mistake to make.

Classic examples are martyr and dynamite. We know what those words mean now but we should not read those contemporary meanings into the 1st century nor let them confuse us over their original meanings. I realise that those examples are exaggerated due to the shift from Greek to English usage but the point still stands within languages over large periods of time too.

How Greeks use the word porneia today tells us little about how it was used in the 1st century.

[ 04. June 2012, 23:12: Message edited by: Johnny S ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I have no reason to think I was having my leg pulled, no. It could of course merely be wrong or misreported information. Or it could in fact be right.
But Ron's point is that it has little relevance to the discussion of a koine word.

In fact it is a logical fallacy so common it even has a name - reverse-root etymology. Using the contemporary usage of a word either to read back the meaning or to the muddy the waters is a common mistake to make.

Classic examples are martyr and dynamite. We know what those words mean now but we should not read those contemporary meanings into the 1st century nor let them confuse us over their original meanings. I realise that those examples are exaggerated due to the shift from Greek to English usage but the point still stands within languages over large periods of time too.

How Greeks use the word porneia today tells us little about how it was used in the 1st century.

And if you READ my post you would see that I made this exact point. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And if you READ my post you would see that I made this exact point.

I did read it. You said:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

Rather interesting that today on a different message board in a different context, I was told that the MODERN Greek meaning of 'porneia' is simply 'naughty'. That you would, for example, tell off a misbehaving child for being 'porneia'.

I realise that the meaning of words could have changed a heck of a lot over two thousand years, but it does rather raise alarm bells about being firm as to what is or isn't covered by the term in the New Testament.

We know what porneia means from 1st century usage. You were trying to muddy it by referring to contemporary usage. Classic example of reverse-root etymology.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
We know what porneia means from 1st century usage.

You must be reading a different thread where people aren't busy arguing about it, then.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
We know what porneia means from 1st century usage.
You must be reading a different thread where people aren't busy arguing about it, then.

I'm not sure which thread you are referring to since I'm reading the thread where people are arguing over what the 1st century usage was and one person was trying, fallaciously, to import a contemporary meaning into the debate in order to cast doubt over the 1st century usage.

Come up with an alternative case for porneia if you want, even try to argue that we can't be certain of its usage but not on the basis of how the word is used 2000 years later.

Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on :

Please read the following objectively. There are exceptions, and many fathers are more interested in ensuring their daughters find a loving husband and a happy and appreciative home, than exploit them for their beauty. So the norm for middle class families is for the girl and the boy to become acquainted, fall in love and approach their respective families for their blessing and approval for their intention to form a home and family of their own.

Here then is what the situation looks like from a rich persons POV. Successful businessmen will tell you that once a profit center stabilizes, it doesn't need much effort to keep it ticking over and the cash flowing in. With all the time on his hand and with the first obsession and flush of harvesting the profits waning, he turnshis eye to acquisition, and in biblical times, this meant horses, chariots, wives, gold and silver, sometimes to the detriment of their efforts in seeking God:

Deuteronomy 17
14 When you come to the land the LORD your God is giving you and take it over and live in it and then say, “I will select a king like all the nations surrounding me,”15 you must select without fail a king whom the LORD your God chooses. From among your fellow citizens you must appoint a king –you may not designate a foreigner who is not one of your fellow Israelites.16 Moreover, he must not accumulate horses for himself or allow the people to return to Egypt to do so, for the LORD has said you must never again return that way.17 Furthermore, he must not marry many wives lest his affections turn aside, and he must not accumulate much silver and gold.18 When he sits on his royal throne he must make a copy of this law on a scroll given to him by the Levitical priests.
19 It must be with him constantly and he must read it as long as he lives, so that he may learn to revere the LORD his God and observe all the words of this law and these statutes and carry them out.20 Then he will not exalt himself above his fellow citizens or turn from the commandments to the right or left, and he and his descendants will enjoy many years ruling over his kingdom in Israel.

Comes a point when the enthusiasm of this acquisitive spree fades as well and he turns his attention to attaining power, all documented succinctly in Richard Foster's ”Money, Sex and Power” (Sorry, ladies! But you know that Abraham and Jacob found it more effort than it was worth, and finally abdicated responsibility of managing things to their favorite wives, for the sake of peace!).

A modern analogy would be someone buying a Beemer, a Jag, a Rolls and a Merc in quick succession, in the quest for a perfect car . When he finds there are pros and cons for every choice, and some turn out to be lemons, the zest for the exercise fades. Now his butler hands him a rota for running the cars, just to keep them in shape. And the lemons are neglected, even when they look at him dolefully, from the far side of his garage...

In biblical times, the poor person laboured to accumulate the bride price, married what it would fetch and settled down to the task of building home and family.

But just as rising incomes raise the possibility of acquiring better homes, furniture and cars in the scenario today for men, it manifested in remarrying in biblical times.

Fastforward to the present day...

My organization set up base in a village and began hiring. (A prices repeated in several locations worldwide). It's hard to imagine the destabilizing effect this has on the local population.

In francophone Africa, we had to hire translators (local language to French) guides (amazing individual, could travel in total darkness, with no discernible landscape features visible!) drivers (fantastically talented individuals, able to make the landrovers jump through hoops!).

Overnight persons making do with about ten dollars a month began to earn a hundred.

I hope you can see what I'm driving at!

For starters, these men were now in competition with landowners!

Using my previous analogy, now they could buy a Voyager, and a Charger, and...

They could even shoot for a used Beemer!!

Now ladies, please let me duck out and get on my asbestos underwear, before you start flaming!

I'll be back (hopefully!). With gory details of specific cases. And attempt to highlight the problems that the Hillel and Shammai camps were trying to tackle.

[ 05. June 2012, 06:34: Message edited by: footwasher ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
We know what porneia means from 1st century usage.
You must be reading a different thread where people aren't busy arguing about it, then.
I'm not sure which thread you are referring to since I'm reading the thread where people are arguing over what the 1st century usage was and one person was trying, fallaciously, to import a contemporary meaning into the debate in order to cast doubt over the 1st century usage.

Come up with an alternative case for porneia if you want, even try to argue that we can't be certain of its usage but not on the basis of how the word is used 2000 years later.

If people were already arguing about the meaning of the word, how on earth could I have suddenly 'cast doubt' upon it?!

Nor was I advocating for any particular meaning of the word in the 1st century. It was merely a mildly pertinent observation, and one which I clearly threw a big caveat around by stating that the meaning of a word can change a lot over 2000 years.

But it's also entirely possible that the meaning HASN'T changed. I simply DON'T KNOW. But you now seem intent on asserting that the meaning has changed as if that's a positive FACT.

Your mistake, basically, is to confuse using reverse etymology to cast doubt with using reverse etymology to positively assert a meaning. And to also confuse "little relevance" (your initial words, and precisely what I was conveying) with "no relevance". I wasn't claiming I had found The Answer.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

The answer isn't in proof texts and word splitting.

And sometimes the sin in divorce - which is NOT a sin per se, although HATED by God - is not in the heart of either party.

So where is it ?

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

Yes this is frustrating.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If people were already arguing about the meaning of the word, how on earth could I have suddenly 'cast doubt' upon it?!

You didn't do anything suddenly. I said that you were adding to the confusion by importing something that had no relevance.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

But it's also entirely possible that the meaning HASN'T changed. I simply DON'T KNOW. But you now seem intent on asserting that the meaning has changed as if that's a positive FACT.

No I didn't. I have no idea about how modern Greeks use it. My point has been that this has no relevance to the current discussion.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Your mistake, basically, is to confuse using reverse etymology to cast doubt with using reverse etymology to positively assert a meaning. And to also confuse "little relevance" (your initial words, and precisely what I was conveying) with "no relevance". I wasn't claiming I had found The Answer.

Okay, let's be crystal clear then. Your comment about the modern usage of the word has no relevance, at all, to the discussion. Is that clearer?

I'm being such an awkward, stubborn pedant about this because it such a common occurrence when discussing porneia. Issues from all over the place, which bear no relevance to this discussion, are imported in the aim of muddying the water. The intention, however, is clear - words are power and if we can cast as much doubt over the semantics of words then we have struck a blow for freedom against those nassssty conservatives.

So go ahead, cast as much doubt as you like - that is the nub of the argument. All I am asking is this, do it legitimately.

[ 05. June 2012, 07:17: Message edited by: Johnny S ]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

So, word splitting it is then ! Not bone splitting to the marrow ?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Johnny, given I can't even get married I don't have all that much of an agenda when it comes to discussing permissible grounds for divorce. You are seriously projecting.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

I apologize to IngoB, the moderators and community for repeatedly calling IngoB a liar ... I'm cringing too.

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

At a time when marriage was all about breeding and passing on property rights, for a woman to be sexually unfaithful to her husband had to be a deal-breaker, because it could result in husband passing on his property and his name to another man's child. So the law makes a whole lot of sense in context.

Once you take property ownership and reproduction out of the equation, there's no reason to elevate (not sure that's the right word!) infidelity above all the other ways in which a person can hurt their spouse and I don't think there's any indication that Jesus *did* think it was the worst thing that could go wrong with a marriage. For one, he says lusting after people is as bad as shagging them - but if that were grounds for divorce, we'd all be divorced.

Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on :

One of the young local staff was planning marriage. It surprised us that he choose a divorcee. He invited me home and prepared a kid goat for the meal, a very costly outlay I later came to know. The meal was at the home of his fiancée, and I was introduced. The young lady was a stunner, sharp aquiline features framed the typical dark complexion. What surprised me was that she was one of a bunch, a bevy of beauties moving around the house.

It struck me that the easy, ”any cause” divorce available in their culture afforded a certain amount of maneuvering, jockeying about, BOTH for the man as well as for the woman. She was back in the market (bridal price probably returned) looking for better prospects. The easy divorce enabled this. This then was the logic of the Hillel ruling. Forbidding divorce leads to living in marriage under duress, whilst allowing it enabled a civilized rearranging of alliances!

Hardness of heart would lead to looking for loopholes in the no divorce system, with some disastrous consequences: homicide, framing for adultery, buying of judges , etc. (note the evasive action taken by Abraham when forced to move into foreign territory).

The Shammai ruling took into account a society that was supposed to eschew the ways of the world, a society set apart by God, with a role to play in being a model to the world, rewarded by God for faithfulness, not by the world for pragmatism. The pragmatism that Jesus was teaching against. Apart from using Jewish marriage to model God's love for His People. Definitely Darby and Joan. And by that token, rare. Peculiar.

These two models however had no place for marriages which had ceased to be marriages. IOW, they represented opposite ends of a spectrum. As has been noted, no case of neglect, failure to provide shelter, food and love had been presented directly in the text.

In such cases, God's love is best represented by solutions that display that love. If God requires heroic displays of love to the offender in the marriage, His call and His empowerment through the Spirit will be visible, enabling a heaping of coals on the offender's head.

The glory goes to Good, and rightly so:

16”Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven. Matt 5

Definitely comes under the ”impossible for men, but with God, all things are possible” category.

That's what I got from the opportunity to see polygamy at work, firsthand.

[ 06. June 2012, 17:08: Message edited by: footwasher ]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Of course God requires heroic displays of love in a marriage. All marriages. That survive. And heroic displays of love to former spouses regardless that the marriage is over.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0